Re: Agenda items for IETF 109

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Lars,

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:35 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2020-10-27, at 21:50, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Lars, you mentioned at the end of the virtual interim that we could have
> more conversations "like this", which I took to mean "at least one more
> virtual interim meeting on multipath".
>
> due to scheduling constraints, there is no possibility to schedule another
> interim before 109.
>
> I'd ask that people continue discussing the topic on the list, with the
> goal of articulating a few options of what to do about multipath that we
> could then further discuss and eventually do a consensus call on.
>
> We plan on leaving some time on the agenda during 109 for this, but due to
> the ongoing LC on the base drafts and needing to push forward with
> currently-adopted WG items, it's a bit unclear whether this plan will pan
> out.
>

I'm guessing that this isn't on the agenda yet, because we haven't started
discussing options in a specific thread (or threads) yet. We've expressed a
lot of opinions, but I'm not sure I could even name the options that people
have in mind.

Is starting a new thread with "what to do about multicast" a good plan for
us, to move forward towards IETF 109?

Best,

Spencer


> It would IMO be worthwhile to schedule another interim on multipath (soon)
> after 109, but I'd like the mailing list discussion to progress towards
> plans for what to do about the topic - I don't think another interim on
> usec cases and requirements would be very productive.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>