Re: Adding IPv10 to the IETF 98 Agenda.

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 07 March 2017 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C6D1294C1 for <>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:29:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DEVVSB4m_z-4 for <>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597CB129467 for <>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:29:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D448EBEBB; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:29:27 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2sDdc0W1QG7Z; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:29:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DDF4BE80; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:29:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; 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 <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 07 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: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7SRu560UlqX4gFsOKhLDV1KlAF7953mOm"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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

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:-)


> A