"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> writes:
Chris –
As regards a meeting specifically targeted for the flooding speed
topic, here is my personal request/requirement:
The meeting MUST allow at least 50 % of the allocated meeting time
for open discussion.
Oh it MUST, MUST it?
Of course it would include time for discussions. We can all read slides offline.
If all we do at the interim meeting is fill the time with
presentations, we will not have accomplished much.
I think this is fairly obvious.
However you (as WG chair) go about building an agenda, please ensure
that this happens.
Right-o, captain.
Thanks,
Chris.
Thanx.
Les
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 9:53 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed & IETF 111
On Jul 9, 2021, at 11:00 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote:
I agree with Bruno that the time available in the WG meeting will
likely be inadequate to present full updates for both drafts. In
addition, I think it is important that the WG have
an opportunity to discuss publicly in an interactive way, the
merits of each proposal. The likelihood that time will be
available in the scheduled WG meeting for that discussion as well
seems low.
How about we use the time in the IETF WG meeting to give a high level
summary of what would be presented in more depth at the interim, and
then we can have discussion to decide what else might should go in
the interim. Perhaps others will feel inspired to also present during
the interim after hearing the high level summary! :) It shouldn’t be
hard to schedule a follow on interim shortly after IETF wraps even if
we wait.
Thanks,
Chris (co-chair hat)
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
