Re: [Lsr] draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed & IETF 111

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Chris –
>
> As regards a meeting specifically targeted for the flooding speed
> topic, here is my personal request/requirement:
>
> The meeting MUST allow at least 50 % of the allocated meeting time
> for open discussion.

Oh it MUST, MUST it?

Of course it would include time for discussions. We can all read slides offline.

> If all we do at the interim meeting is fill the time with
> presentations, we will not have accomplished much.

I think this is fairly obvious.

> However you (as WG chair) go about building an agenda, please ensure
> that this happens.

Right-o, captain.

Thanks,
Chris.

> Thanx.
>
>
>
>     Les
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 9:53 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed & IETF 111
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On Jul 9, 2021, at 11:00 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
>     [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
>     I agree with Bruno that the time available in the WG meeting will
>     likely be inadequate to present full updates for both drafts. In
>     addition, I think it is important that the WG have
>
>     an opportunity to discuss publicly in an interactive way, the
>     merits of each proposal. The likelihood that time will be
>     available in the scheduled WG meeting for that discussion as well
>     seems low.
>
>
>
> How about we use the time in the IETF WG meeting to give a high level
> summary of what would be presented in more depth at the interim, and
> then we can have discussion to decide what else might should go in
> the interim. Perhaps others will feel inspired to also present during
> the interim after hearing the high level summary! :) It shouldn’t be
> hard to schedule a follow on interim shortly after IETF wraps even if
> we wait.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris (co-chair hat)