Hi WG, On 22 May 2012, at 07:08, "Murphy, Sandra" <sandra.mur...@sparta.com> wrote:
> An eagle eye reader points out that the agenda deadline before the June > meeting is in May, not June, and the day after tomorrow is still May, not > June. > > Still. Get any requests for topics in asap. Agenda deadline is Wed 23 May > (tomorrow). I would like to add to this: if there are no topics to discuss, chairs reserve the right to cancel the interim. So in absence of new topics, some confirmation that what Sandy suggested as the agenda earlier would be good. > > --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair > ________________________________________ > From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, > Sandra [sandra.mur...@sparta.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 6:27 PM > To: sidr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun > > Agenda deadline is Wed 23 Jun (day after tomorrow). > > Please send suggestions to the list. > > --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair > ________________________________________ > From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, > Sandra [sandra.mur...@sparta.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:05 PM > To: sidr@ietf.org > Subject: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun > > Potential agenda items for the 6 Jun interim meeting. > > The agenda needs to be announced two weeks ahead of time, which is next > Wednesday. > > Please send suggested topics to the list. Below are two suggestions to spark > the discussion. > > (1) AS_PATH > > There was one agenda topic that we never directly addressed at the 30 Apr > meeting. That topic was the absence of the AS_PATH attribute from the bgpsec > protocol. (The info normally contained in the AS_PATH is contained in the > bgpsec attributes.) > > The absence of the AS_PATH did come up in discussing other topics (see the > minutes), but we did not discuss it directly. > > (2) router private key provisioning. > > In the interim in San Diego, there were requests (from operators) that > guidance to operators of how to provision a router with the needed keys would > be a good idea. We had some discussion in the Paris meeting of two drafts > discussing provisioning the routers with their needed private keys. There's > also been a recent flurry of discussion on the list. > > --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
