Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-nvo3-dhc-vxlan-multicast-00.txt

> About dhc presentation slot, it is up to you, I remember last time we were assigned a slot but never had a chance.

That was actually two IETF's ago (IETF-87, Berlin) that you requested a slot but we ran out of time.

Your most recent nvo3 presentation is at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-nvo3-7.pdf

-          Bernie

From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:50 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Ted Lemon; dhcwg@ietf.org; Dhc Chairs
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-nvo3-dhc-vxlan-multicast-00.txt

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
I agree. Though there now has been some discussion :).

As this is now targeted at nvo3, I don't see a strong need for a presentation in dhc at this time. If the nvo3 adopts this work (i.e., believes it is a problem that needs a solution), we can revisit for a future presentation? Of course, you should continue to make the dhc aware of the progress of this draft and collecting input when offered or if you raise specific issues or questions.

It is odd that this isn't on the nvo3 agenda (at least at present), as it would seem to be more appropriate there as the intended WG.

Bernie, I presented it in nvo3 in Vancouver, this time we did not ask a slot. About dhc presentation slot, it is up to you, I remember last time we were assigned a slot but never had a chance.
We would like to clarify all the comments made so far, right now Ted's comment has not yet been resolved, we are waiting for his reply.
Regards,
Behcet
---

General comment about many individual drafts:

I think that people that submit individual drafts don't always take the next [manual] step to notify the DHC WG of that draft. They (mistakenly) believe somehow that the "group" is notified when it isn't (the main ietf mailing list gets the notice, but not the dhc wg).

I would highly recommend that any new or updated draft posting (whether WG document or individual) is followed up with an email to the DHC WG:
- for new drafts, explain it (perhaps by using the abstract or introduction) and why you feel it is important to the WG and what you want the WG to do with the draft (if individual). Think of this as presenting the main points and what areas you feel the WG may want to review or have a particular concern about.
- for updates, indicate what has changed and why. And for individual, again indicate what you want the WG to do next with the draft. Is it FYI? Is it because you feel it is ready for adoption and will propose a call shortly? ...

There are some WGs where the chairs do post "a new draft or new revision has been posted" (for individual drafts related to the WG). But in the DHC WG we assume that the authors will do this and expect them to - the chairs have enough to do!

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:20 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>; Dhc Chairs
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-nvo3-dhc-vxlan-multicast-00.txt

Before the working group hears a presentation on this, it would be good if Behcet could answer the question I asked on the mailing list.   If the draft isn't important enough to discuss on the mailing list, it surely doesn't need time on the schedule in London!
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg