[ippm] Re: IPPM/BMWG Joint Sessions and Possible Chartering - Your Comments

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Weeeeeeell, of course it is worthwhile to worry about the point Nalini makes.

But IPPM and BMWG have been doing joint meetings for a couple of cycles, and seem to make this work OK.

For example, this time around WG I-Ds took up 55 minutes, non-WG I-Ds took 35 minutes, and there was 30 minutes for the “merging” discussion.

So it doesn’t look (to me) that the agenda time is a reason to not do this.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Nalini J Elkins <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 06 November 2025 19:28
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [ippm] Re: IPPM/BMWG Joint Sessions and Possible Chartering - Your Comments

 

Guys,

 

Thanks for doing all the work on this.  I have just one concern.  The agenda at ippm is very packed as it is.  Will we get enough time to discuss everything?

 

Nalini 



 <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=9d3a686e-218d-4849-8298-b480188dc8ac&af_android_url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%3Fid%3Dcom.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail%26listing%3Demail_signature> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

 

On Wednesday, November 5, 2025, 2:20 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  wrote:

Dear IPPM and BMWG,

 

On behalf of Marcus, Giuseppe and Qin. Thanks a lot for initial comments from the BMWG and IPPM communities on the joint chartering and sharing your thoughts on commonalities between the two working groups.

 

For those who were not able to join the working group session today, please review the slide Qin presented on the reasoning:

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/materials/slides-124-ippm-12-bipp-benchmarking-ip-performance-measurement-consolidation-00> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/materials/slides-124-ippm-12-bipp-benchmarking-ip-performance-measurement-consolidation-00

 

We would like to have more feedback from the community on the mailing list. 

 

We did two joint working group sessions so far and would like to hear what the experience was for you. By having other working group documents presentations, and perhaps even had the chance to review documents mutually, did you recognized commonalities which are beneficial to explore further or do you think that the topics are too far apart?

 

Please feedback on this thread. We like to facilitate the discussion and hear more comments.

 

I will be working on finalizing the meeting notes and I like to remind that the opsarea session is tomorrow on Thursday 14:30 – 16:30 EST at the room Place du Canada and remotely on https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf124/?session=34590. Qin will be presenting there as well with the aim to get more feedback from the opsarea.

 

Besides the IPPM and BMWG mailing list conversations and the reach out to the opsarea, we are going to meet next at the joint interim on November 20th (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2025-ippm-01/session/ippm) where we have more time to discuss. We will look at the feedback we are receiving and decide from there how we moderate the discussion.

 

I like to take opportunity here and mention that it is important that you voice your thoughts and opinion. For Giuseppe, Marcus, Qin, Med and me it is important that everybody is heard, we have plenty of time and chances to discuss and we have a good community consensus on next steps.

 

Don't hesitate to reach out directly to us. We still have a few days here in Montreal. It would be great to catch up and hear your thoughts.

 

Best wishes

Thomas, Giuseppe, Marcus and Qin

 

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>