Re: [P2PSIP] Draft of meeting minutes uploaded

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

Dear Marc,

Thanks a lot for your revision of the minutes. Please see some comments
inline below.


On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 10:31 -0700, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 02:04 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > A draft of the minutes is available:
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-p2psip
> > 
> > Many thanks Miguel Angel for providing the minutes.
> > 
> > Please provide your feedback by the end of next week.
> > 
> 
> 1. The minutes about the beginning of the WG session are missing, i.e. the
> part about the timeline of WGLCs for the following drafts:
> 
> - draft-ietf-p2psip-drr
> - draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr
> - draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning
> - draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery
> - draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts
> - draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics

Well, this was supposed to be covered by "The chairs go through the WG
status.", as Brian basically went through the slides. Would it be enough
if we modify it to say "The chairs go through the WG status slides."?

> 
> 2. "DISCO and SHARE documents. This will be adopted as WG items, subject
> to confirmation on the list."
> 
> Aren't we in circular loop here?  This was discussed and adopted in Paris,
> then discussed in the list.

It's true that was discussed in Paris and we had the call on the list
before Vancouver. I think Brian mentioned the confirmation on the list
because at that time we had not yet notified the adoption on the list.
I'll modify the minutes to say "DISCO and SHARE documents. These will be
adopted as WG items."

> 
> 3. Because publication of updates for draft-ietf-p2psip-base tends to be, hmm,
> unpredictable implementers cannot count on it so I'd rather have a good list
> of what exactly was decided during the session:
> 
> 3.1. "Slide 2: EKR disagrees with the proposed solution."
> 
> The text will be clarified to say that the hash does contain the length prefix.

OK, I've added your proposed text.

> 
> 3.2. "Slide 3: agreed to make everything based on 1."
> 
> 3rd paragraph will be changed to "search
> through the finger table entries from i=1 and ..."

OK, I've added your proposed text.

> 
> 3.3. "Slide 4: It is agreed to delete multicast."
> 
> Everything related to multicast, anycast and broadcast will be removed from
> the draft, so there is no need for naked Ping.

OK, I've added your proposed text.

> 
> 3.4. "Slide 6: Cullen thinks there is nothing to update in the draft. Marc
> agrees. That needs to be checked with Michale."
> 
> I do not remember agreeing with this (but I agreed that Michael should listen
> to Cullen's explanations).

What about "Slide 6: Cullen thinks there is nothing to update in the
draft. That needs to be checked with Michael."?

> 
> 3.5. "Slide 7: Agreed."
> 
> "Connection table" to be replaced with "Neighbor table" in 10.7.4.1.

OK, I've added your proposed text.

> 
> 3.6. "Slide 8: The text will change to say that the configuration file will
> always be signed. EKR: Read the configuration file, get the key out of
> it, ... Agreement to update the draft."
> 
> Configuration files retrieved from the configuration server are *always* signed.

OK, I've added your proposed text.

> 
> 3.7. "Slide 11: Cullen. We may need something more specific:
> "reload-config". Agreed."
> 
> The agreed path is "/.well-known/reload-config"

OK, I've added your proposed text.

Minutes have been updated on the materials site. Thanks again for the
feedback.

> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
   GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                IEEE Network Special Issue on
                  Video over Mobile Networks
 http://www.comsoc.org/netmag/call-papers (EXTENDED: July, 31)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++