Re: [104all] Further Clarification Re: IETF 104 Preliminary Agenda

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Tue, 26 February 2019 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: 104all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 104all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F08130DCB; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:34:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9qd_AOkOF3ur; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A85130DC4; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [119.94.169.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 863AB180157E; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 02:34:52 +0100 (CET)
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, recentattendees@ietf.org, 104all@ietf.org, ietf-announce@ietf.org
References: <155089851917.5347.209761560453230605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <23D062E4-4464-48C2-9464-61697C2351D6@cooperw.in> <A7B3EF23-DE19-4330-A660-D27744B95A34@gmail.com> <3a201a22-6ed2-ab83-5205-a28af7ba49d7@labn.net> <ea13d9b6-78bb-8067-d8f2-a7b98c5de307@pi.nu> <EE41BDFB-ED4E-4944-9E87-5E56766FAE37@cooperw.in> <2ad72bb2-6c16-f1a3-67b3-a25dfc641ce7@pi.nu> <DC65F7A3-413D-4787-8A3D-1B4C8440AE89@fugue.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <9167b1c9-6385-35e0-69ff-91364150284f@pi.nu>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:33:55 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DC65F7A3-413D-4787-8A3D-1B4C8440AE89@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/104all/UdLul-gsx1OhyvcDdVNXwDorxhs>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:12:28 -0800
Subject: Re: [104all] Further Clarification Re: IETF 104 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: 104all@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Official Communication about IETF 104 <104all.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/104all>, <mailto:104all-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/104all/>
List-Post: <mailto:104all@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:104all-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/104all>, <mailto:104all-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 01:34:59 -0000

Ted,

On 2019-02-25 23:30, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu 
> <mailto:loa@pi.nu>> wrote:
>> My advice would be to scratch the agenda, start over, leave the
>> experiment out and optimize to avoid conflicts!
> 
> How would they do that?   What information do they have now that they 
> didn’t have before they published the agenda?

I didn't say there is new any new information AFTER the agenda was
posted. The new info is the preliminary agenda itself! I you look at
MPLS and LSR meeting across the lunch slot on Wednesday, we have some
key participants of the MPLS wg, required to be in the LSR wg meeting.

I'm really unhappy about the current agenda.

What I said was that IESG should refocus in the light of the many
conflicts and redo the agenda with the objective to avoid conflicts.

/Loa
> 
> I ask because in fact, this agenda is the least conflicted one /for 
> me/ that I have seen in a long time.   I’m /really/ happy with the 
> current agenda, and can really only lose from a re-do.   This is not to 
> say that a re-do is not the right thing to do.   What I’m saying is that 
> the fact that a couple of people have griped about conflicts and about 
> an over-full agenda is /not data./   It is /anecdata/.
> 
> As Stewart has said, if we want to do better at this, we need /data, 
> /not /anecdata./
> /
> /

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64