Was the WG consulted on scheduling this virtual meeting and I missed the
message?
The first message I see on the matter is the announcement of the meeting on
3/7. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm traveling to Paris the day it's
scheduled (actually ON the plane during the meeting), and
Hi WG, and Sandy as co-chair,
On 19 Mar 2012, at 15:11, George, Wes wrote:
Was the WG consulted on scheduling this virtual meeting and I missed the
message?
+1... I may have missed something, but I don't remember this... In any case I
can not attend, not even remotely, Saturday.
Is there
On Mar 19, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
Hi WG, and Sandy as co-chair,
On 19 Mar 2012, at 15:11, George, Wes wrote:
Was the WG consulted on scheduling this virtual meeting and I missed the
message?
+1... I may have missed something, but I don't remember this... In any
The announcement of the SIDR virtual interim
failed to reach iesg-secret...@ietf.org within
the required two weeks notice. Additionally
the agenda was published on Sunday 17th March
and thus failed to meet the requirement that
The agenda must be published at least one
week before the call or
The announcement of the SIDR virtual interim
failed to reach iesg-secret...@ietf.org within
the required two weeks notice. Additionally
the agenda was published on Sunday 17th March
and thus failed to meet the requirement that
The agenda must be published at least one
week before the call or
Brian,
...
That is not correct, i.e. you misunderstand.
The desired outcome is that sender/receiver _negotiate_ what is or
is not to be sent,
and the protocol merely enforces what has been agreed upon. The
automatic enforcement
of this high-level policy, is what stops route leaks from being
Monday works for me.
Friday not.
--
Jakob Heitz.
-Original Message-
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murphy,
Sandra
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 2:37 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] possible additional meeting times
The routing ADs have
At 9:37 PM + 3/19/12, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
The routing ADs have suggested that sidr could use the cancelled EAI and/or
the cancelled CODEC slot to make up for the cancelled virtual meeting.
EAI was to meet 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I on Monday March 26.
CODEC was to meet 1120-1220
Hi,
The virtual meeting agenda was supposed to take 6h (+2h lunch break).
May I ask how below proposed time slots will make up for the cancelled
virtual meeting if one is 2h and the other one is just 1h ?
Many thx,
R.
The routing ADs have suggested that sidr could use the cancelled EAI
Given that there is not a lot of lead time before this, *and* that the IDR
meeting is immediate before this slot...
And that there is a moratorium on -00 IDs (meaning any material under
discussion is limited to already-submitted items)...
Discussing the reqs doc then is fine.
Perhaps the time
Hi Brian,
The desired outcome is that sender/receiver _negotiate_ what is or is not to be
sent,
and the protocol merely enforces what has been agreed upon. The automatic
enforcement
of this high-level policy, is what stops route leaks from being initiated or
propagated.
The policy is still
I was just asking whether people thought that they coule make the additional
time slot.
From the tone of your message, you think you can.
Thanks for the suggestion of choosing topics and the tie to idr, particularly
the route leaks question.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
Hi, Robert,
The problem being solved is, that the current methodology places the entire
onus on not allowing route leaks, on the immediate upstream provider - who
may be small and inexperienced.
What is being solved, in particular, is the ability to identify and block
route-leaks when one is
The model I have long (30 years) employed is that if the secruity checks
succeed,
the protocol should operate as before (i.e., w/o the added secruity
mechanisms),
because the environment is seen as benign.
---snip---
I'd like to think that the BGPSEC mechanisms are being developed in a way
Yes to either/both
Thanks,
Wes
-Original Message-
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Murphy, Sandra
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:58 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] replies needed quickly RE: possible additional meeting times
One
Monday is my preference. Friday clashes with other work.
Cheers
Terry
On 20/03/12 7:58 AM, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@sparta.com wrote:
One important point.
The routing AD needs to know the decision by COB UTC time on Tuesday
(tomorrow).
So replies are needed quickly.
--Sandy
16 matches
Mail list logo
