Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:

> Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at  
>>> using the time we have more efficiently.
>>
>> Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think  
>> - we have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a number of drafts in  
>> our time. I would often like to allow a discussion to be longer,  
>> for the same reason that we meet f2f in the first place - we'd like  
>> to get all the opinions on the table and come to some sense of  
>> closure. I am having two meetings in the course of the week and  
>> finding myself rushing discussions along.
>
> My recollection is that you do publicize the agenda well in advance,  
> and that's a big improvement over many working groups.  Here's the  
> real question, Fred: when you guys go through your meetings, how  
> much could have been done as a VoD?  What I mean by that is how much  
> discussion occurs on each particular presentation?  This might be  
> something for chairs to measure at Dublin as input into this process.

We tend to have three categories of talks:

  - some that could be summarized as "please read my draft"
  - discussions resulting from drafts
  - groups of talks presenting different aspects of a common theme

An example of the third category is the NAT-PT++ discussion that has  
happened in v6ops and is now moving to behave. In IETF-70 I literally  
set aside a day (2.5 hours) for a collection of talks and ensuing  
microphone discussion on that topic. In IETF-71 we had an extended  
discussion on the resulting requirements draft, and in this meeting we  
will finalize that discussion and move to WG last call. Another  
example is various drafts discussing aspects of IPv6 CPE requirements.

An example of discussions arising from/around drafts is the Teredo  
issue. Microsoft published Teredo as a draft sponsored by Mark  
Townsley, and subsequently made numerous minor changes to it in  
response to field experience. Discussion arose from two quarters  
regarding Teredo, and we have had working group discussion of the  
issues raised. We now have a new draft on the topic that Dave Thaler  
contributed to which likely beings those discussions to rational  
closure.

Yes, we have some instances of "please read my draft", and I wish the  
v6ops community would make better use of the mailing list. But we do  
in fact have pretty wide-ranging discussion as well.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf