Re: Adding IPv10 to the IETF 98 Agenda.

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 07 March 2017 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C6D1294C1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:29:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DEVVSB4m_z-4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597CB129467 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D448EBEBB; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:29:27 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2sDdc0W1QG7Z; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:29:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DDF4BE80; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:29:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1488911366; bh=i/Pyx2Qjpr41mQXG+qoQNsvJBGLzMVldcsfwkF7FrrU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=v9vc4r4ZQT5F5SXTzlyhn9NfOW5YsnIC0MIBE0di98dc3puvXhgDptDO0yaL2tkj8 QoiR8pxvNhxZmenqMpMZyvrBxEm2KYPs6XjZpRXw1OO8bKPR1iAOV5k9e50ELA5saX PFoJAKkAMLNTz+sSuDEuBQNvCPCZ4k1Q87ysy/hE=
Subject: Re: Adding IPv10 to the IETF 98 Agenda.
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <HE1PR04MB1449B0672C109C5C2A6AC52CBD2C0@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20170307090849.jyl7fqqbn3icjw7a@nic.fr> <CAMm+LwgJg39CFKvxNNPkwC4XUCWPtrSAxTtce34p11UC8E+NyQ@mail.gmail.com> <18ee4435-726b-f054-e90b-419409197c11@gmail.com> <20170307155842.GG13753@mx4.yitter.info>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <0936b875-1c21-1a25-bec9-ef5a3c1d485e@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:29:25 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170307155842.GG13753@mx4.yitter.info>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7SRu560UlqX4gFsOKhLDV1KlAF7953mOm"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oocB_c9LLdw80VWMxp9RtJQ6auA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:29:31 -0000


On 07/03/17 15:58, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:42:57PM +0000, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> It might be interesting to have a wild ideas slot in the form of a series of
>> 10 mins
>> talks.
> 
> That sounds like a lightning-talks session.  I wonder whether the
> plenary would be a good venue for that, or whether that would be too
> large an audience?  We might not have to do it every time, but perhaps
> this is a suggestion for the IAB technical plenary program to
> consider.  What do people think?

Not the plenary. Too big an audience for less well developed
ideas, and too scary for many presenters. (And, at a plenary,
there would always be someone excited by any random talk, so
a smaller set of listeners may actually be beneficial for QA
reasons.)

Yes to the idea that the IAB (or IESG) could try a session like
this a couple of times and see how it goes. Put it in a small
room during the normal daytime in parallel with other stuff
and see what happens.

There would need to be a programme ctte or some rules as to
how one gets a slot. If the latter, then I don't like FCFS
as we'd end up with the same presenters too many times if I
know us:-)

S.


> 
> A
>