Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] New draft posted

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 30 Oct 2019, at 11:19, Olufemi Komolafe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Tim,

On 30 Oct 2019, at 07:16, Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

The survey sounds good to me.

We can point NANOG (and other NOGs, like UKNOF, and the R&E campus communities) at that.

Are we thinking text-based or using something like SurveyMonkey?


I think the intention is to use something like SurveyMonkey.  And I actually think it might be best for you to create an account and transpose the questions from the draft to an online tool since you are the only one that should have access to the raw responses. Is this something you are willing/able to do?

I’m reasonably experienced with SurveyMonkey.

But note that if we expect a large number of responses, or want several questions, the free version may not suffice.  Do any of us have access to a paid version?

I can check what Jisc might have available.

Tim


Regards,
Femi



Tim

On 30 Oct 2019, at 03:04, Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi

It's not strictly needed, but I think it is helpful, and the hardest part, creating the survey, is already done. I think we should move forward.

Without the survey we can only speculate about what is out there. I think it is really useful data.

Stig


On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 18:04 Michael McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi all,

I had a chat with Alyssa Cooper, here at Nanog, to discuss how best to engage the operators to move an rfc to internet standard. She recommended not doing a survey, saying its probably unnecessary. We can certainly still send it as it worked with pim-sm. Or we can simply email the nanog list (and I2 and ?) and explain our intention to move 3376/3810 to Internet standard and see if they +1.

What say ye?
mike

From: Igmp-mld-bis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mike McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] New draft posted

Done

From: Igmp-mld-bis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Olufemi Komolafe <femi=[e-mail]<mailto:femi=[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 4:23 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Tim Chown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Mike McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] New draft posted

The naming of the drafts has been a bit messy.  We’ve had:
draft-volunteers-pim-igmp-mld-bis-00.txt
draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-bis-00
draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-00

Rather than creating a new document the WG chairs suggested creating draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-01 which I have just posted.  The -00 does not have the email address of some of the co-authors including myself.  Therefore, can someone whose email address was on the previous revision and so got a notification please approve the publication?

Regards,
Femi


On 28 Oct 2019, at 01:15, Olufemi Komolafe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

HI,

I’ve posted the updated version of the draft.  I could not update the original draft which has since expired as my email address was omitted on the original draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/102921/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fsubmit%2Fstatus%2F102921%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C61e4cbd6e942426890a608d75cc73d31%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637079883125293782&sdata=h6KOHsVyutaGKamll%2BXua0AWqjksmttOnmohIrnQ438%3D&reserved=0>) and so I’ve simply posted a new draft which I’ve attached FYI.

Regards,
Femi

<draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-update-survey-00.txt>