Re: [Efficientnd-dt] 6man IETF 92 Call for agenda items

[Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]>]

On 3/10/15 1:31 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Erik,
>
> I also noticed draft-nordmark-6man-dad-approaches-00 is that something you’ll want to cover?
I/we can mention it briefly as part of the dad-issues slot. But it is 
more important to gauge what the WG thinks need to be improved with DAD 
first. Solution discussion should wait until after that.

> right now we have 15 minutes reserved for each of.
>
> alternatively consider it a 30 minute session that you can split whichever way you like.
Some text missing above. I assume the dad-issues and rs-refresh is what 
you meant by "each of".

Thanks,
    Erik

>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>
>> On 04 Mar 2015, at 2:05 , Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/3/15 6:09 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> Erik,
>>>
>>>> Did you add two requests to the queue?
>>>> One was for draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh and a separate one for draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues?
>>>> Either Andrew will present the second one remotely, or I can do it on site.
>>> yes, thank you those are added.
>>> 15 minutes each. alternatively we make a design team session like we did last time?
>> Better to keep them separate. They are both merely(?) outgrowths of the DT work.
>>
>>   Erik
>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Ole
>>>
>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2015, at 21:03 , Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As part of the efficient-nd report in HNL we mentioned two drafts but they were not discussed at any depth:
>>>>>> draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues and draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it would make sense for Andrew to present the first one (he is cc'ed); including that request here to reserve some time on the agenda while we determine whether this is needed.
>>>>>> The purpose of such a presentation would be to get an answer to what the WG wants to do about DAD. (See my reminder to the list today.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh received some positive feedback in the room. I think a presentation + question whether to make it a WG draft makes sense. While the presentation can be short - 3-4 slides of substance might do it - it would be good to  time for discussion around making it a WG draft. So 15 minutes might be a reasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>    Erik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/17/15 6:42 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>>>>> We have asked for a two and a half hour slot in Dallas for the 6MAN working group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please send your request for agenda time to the 6man chairs.
>>>>>>> Please include in the request, the title and file name of the draft, the speakers name (and email),
>>>>>>> and how much time you need.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will prioritise drafts that are working group items and drafts that have been actively discussed on the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We expect at least half the presentation time to be used for open discussion,
>>>>>>> please plan your presentation accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New drafts not discussed on the mailing list prior to the meeting,
>>>>>>> or drafts that do not appear to have support from the working group are unlikely to get time at the meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please have agenda items to us by 2015-03-09 and also note the draft deadline for IETF92:
>>>>>>> 2015-03-09 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob & Ole
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Efficientnd-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/efficientnd-dt