Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] IGMPv3 / MLDv2 survey

I looked at the latest survey and I don't have any additional comments.

~Tim

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You may have missed a more recent email Nic, as I fixed the "more info"
> issue… see
> https://jisc.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/survey-on-implementations-and-deployment-of-igmpv3-and-mld-2
>
> What I need is a list of things to fix, then I’ll clone, edit and
> rerelease the survey so we can go live.
>
> Tim
>
> On 25 Nov 2019, at 12:53, N.Leymann@telekom.de wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> looks good.
>
> One remark. There are several “more info” buttons, but the info itself
> seems to be missing. I think we should at least for some of the questions
> have some more details/explanation (specifically questions related to the
> potential problems with the fallback between versions).
>
> Regards
>
> Nic
>
> *Von:* Igmp-mld-bis <igmp-mld-bis-bounces@ietf.org> *Im Auftrag von *Olufemi
> Komolafe
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. November 2019 13:16
> *An:* Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
> *Cc:* Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>; Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>;
> Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>; Mankamana Mishra
> (mankamis) <mankamis@cisco.com>; igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] IGMPv3 / MLDv2 survey
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks.  Looks good to me.  I don’t have anything to add other than my
> earlier suggestions which you’ve replied to.
>
> Anyone else got any comments?
>
> Regards,
> Femi
>
>
> On 21 Nov 2019, at 15:07, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Can I get a final list of changes required?
>
> It’s now at this URL, same pw of ietfpim.
>
>
> https://jisc.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/survey-on-implementations-and-deployment-of-igmpv3-and-mld-2
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 18 Nov 2019, at 11:41, Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Feel free to use pim-chairs@ietf.org for questions unless you want to
> use one of your own emails.
>
> thanks, its looking good.
>
> mike
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:42 AM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Some points picked up on below, the rest I’ll wait for consensus...
>
> On 18 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Olufemi Komolafe <femi@arista.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> The survey looks really good!  Thanks for helping with this; much
> appreciated :-)
>
> Please see inline for some responses….
>
>
> On 18 Nov 2019, at 09:44, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 5:41 AM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies for the delay in setting this up.  I have launched a (draft)
> survey at:
>
> https://jisc.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/survey-on-implementations-and-deployment-of-igmpv3-and-mld
>
> I have set a password of ietfpim for now.  I used an IETF logo rather than
> the Jisc one.
>
> I have tried to add some logic to allow vendors and/or operators to use
> the same questionnaire.
>
> Please test vigorously and check it captures the spirit of the draft
> correctly.
>
> Some questions for you -
>
> - which questions should be compulsory?
>
>
> I’m not sure we need to make any questions compulsory.  Hopefully folks
> will answer most/all the questions.
>
>
> - should the anonymous question come before we ask names etc?
>
>
> Yes, I think that the question about anonymity should come before asking
> for the name/contact info.  I do think we should still ask for the
> name/contact info, even if they indicate they want to complete it
> anonymously, as supplying this personal info will probably make people feel
> a bit more accountable and so will likely give their replies a bit more
> consideration.  I think we should clarify what we mean by “anonymously” by
> changing the question to:
> “Do you wish to complete the survey anonymously (in which case you will
> not be identified in the report)?"
>
>
> - should the issues with fallback be a y/n answer (as is) or a “What
> issues have you had with…” free text?
>
>
> I think the free text idea is better.
>
>
> - I added a final “any other comments” type question.  Is that ok?
>
>
> Yep, good idea.
>
>
> Also, some other thoughts…...
>
> I think we should change:
> Would you like to complete the part of the survey targeted at vendors and
> host implementors?
> + Yes
> + No
> to
> Which part of the survey would you like to complete?  The part targeted at
> + Vendor and host implementors?
> + Network operators?
>
>
> The problem with that is the some people might want to do both, but also
> that the survey tool doesn’t support such a flow; if you choose the
> implementor one when you get to the end of that you hit the operator
> section, so I need to ask twice, whichever way it’s done anyway.
>
> In case they find our list insufficient, should we add a box in which they
> can write in “Any other feature” after the list we provide for the “Which
> IGMPv3 and MLDv2 features do you use?” question?
>
> Will numbering the questions help processing the results etc?
>
>
> They are numbered, I just don’t have that turned on.  I could do so.
>
> Also, should we put a contact email address at the start in case people
> have questions?  Perhaps the WG chairs?  Or your own?
>
>
> We can do that - if so let me know whose details to add.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Thanks,
> Femi
>
>
>
> While you consider those, I’ll find out why each question has a pointless
> “More info” box next to it.
>
> Bes6t wishes,
> Tim
>
>
> --
> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
>