Re: [dnssd] Should DNSSD meet at IETF 120?

Fifteen minutes each with some slop in the schedule ought to be enough.

The problem with prioritizing working group documents is that what I work
on is driven by what's causing problems. The challenge with e.g.
Advertising Proxy, which is adopted, is that it's working as it is, and so
I haven't had time to actually implement the new proposal because it's not
urgent, so even though it's working group work it winds up getting short
shrift. :(

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 6:36 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Ted! Do you have a rough estimate of how much time you'd like for
> each of these?
> As usual, we'll focus meeting time on adopted items before considering
> individual drafts or other topics.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 2:06 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>
>> I think so. We actually have at least four things I want to talk about:
>>
>> 1. A report/discussion on the EDNS(0) TSR update and implementation
>> 2. A discussion about compressing SRP updates for constrained networks
>> (has suddenly become topical)
>> 3. DNS Push additional data update (has also suddenly become topical)
>> 4. Updated Advertising Proxy document (stretch goal)
>>
>> A fifth topic that's sort of crossover between DNSSD and SNAC is
>> automatic centralization of SRP/DNSSD on home/SOHO networks. This has
>> become a hot topic for home routers and it would be nice if we had a way
>> for home routers to announce that they can act as centralized DNSSD servers
>> and for SNAC routers to take advantage of the centralized SRP/DNSSD
>> service. This last bit is nothing new—it's on the SNAC charter—but I've had
>> people asking me more urgently than had previously been the case to figure
>> out how to do this, so...
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:50 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi DNSSD enthusiasts,
>>>
>>> Planning for IETF 120 has started. The chairs are wondering whether
>>> DNSSD should meet at IETF 120 in Vancouver this July. Please share requests
>>> for agenda items (including expected durations) in response to this email.
>>> If there are sufficient requests, we will schedule a session. The requested
>>> length will also depend on the agenda requests we receive.
>>>
>>> Additionally, we would like to hear feedback about our session at IETF
>>> 119 in Brisbane. As a reminder, we tried something new by having a joint
>>> session with SNAC. We're interested in any thoughts you might have about
>>> that experiment. In particular, is this something that we should consider
>>> repeating?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dnssd mailing list
>>> dnssd@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>>>
>>