Re: [dnssd] DNSSD at 118?

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Esko and Ted,

What you're suggesting is definitely not crazy. In my experience, I've
found that meetings to edit documents work best with a smaller group (in
the case of DNSSD I'd say the editors and implementers) while official
working group meetings have a bigger audience and are most useful to get
the output of the smaller group shared with the wider group to see if
anyone has thoughts, ideas or concerns. Sales pitches are also useful there
to get new folks involved in upcoming work. In an ideal world, we can have
both in Prague where we first have a smaller side meeting earlier in the
week and then have the official WG meeting later in the week. The smaller
side meeting would be open to anyone interested but with a goal of
participation more than observation. The chairs could help coordinate that
if the group thinks this is a good plan. In particular, let us know if
anyone is interested in joining the side meeting remotely because
organizing VC for those is generally doable but isn't always easy. And for
folks planning to attend in-person and interested in the side meeting, let
us know what day you're planning on flying in/out to help scheduling.

David

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 6:51 AM Esko Dijk <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> +1 for the do-actual-work proposal.  Side meetings are common at IETF so
> we can have those.
>
>
>
> > and I certainly don't object to sales pitches and status reports if
> people have those as well.
>
>
>
> I think giving an intro as to what the open issues or missing parts are of
> a solution is still useful.  Because not everyone is up to date.  It’s more
> of an anti-sales-pitch then ;-)
>
>
>
> *From:* dnssd <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * Ted Lemon
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 14, 2023 15:41
> *To:* David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* DNSSD <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [dnssd] DNSSD at 118?
>
>
>
> I think there's a tendency at IETF meetings to present status and sales
> pitches, and maybe have some brief—possibly well-informed, possibly
> not—discussion. I do not know of a specific thing that needs a status
> update at the upcoming IETF, although that could change between now and
> November. However, one thing that I wish there were more of at IETFs is
> actual work being done, as opposed to status updates and sales pitches. I'm
> planning to show up in Prague, as I suspect others are, and I would like to
> do some work. I think it would be useful to have an AV setup and a time
> slot for that. So if I were to propose agenda items, they would be, perhaps:
>
>
>
> - Discussion and document editing on TSR
>
> - Discussion and document editing on SRP Replication
>
> - Discussion and document editing on Advertising Proxy et al.
>
>
>
> It would be good to have this early in the week, and then do further
> collaboration later in the week. I say this because I think a lot of people
> wind up effectively taking the week off from work to go to IETF or to
> participate in IETF, and so this is a really good opportunity for some
> heads-down dedicated work. I guess if we get scheduled on Friday, we could
> schedule some meetings in non-WG meeting rooms to prepare for the Friday
> session, and that could make the session effective as well.
>
>
>
> That said, I am open to the chairs telling me I am crazy, and I certainly
> don't object to sales pitches and status reports if people have those as
> well.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 7:05 PM David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi DNSSD enthusiasts,
>
>
>
> The chairs have until next Friday to put in a request to have DNSSD meet
> at IETF 118 in Prague. Do you think we should meet? If yes, please send us
> agenda items - either on the list or directly to the chairs.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>
>