Re: [Roll] Draft Agenda

[Philip Levis <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
> Please be aware that among JP and I, I'm the one pushing loudest to 
> restrict our meeting slot time to (in order of priority):
> 
> 1) things in our charter.
> 2) things with activity on the mailing list.
> 3) things with reproduceable problem statements that might need
>   to go into the charter.
> 
> You may have noticed how incredibly full the IETF meetings are.
> 
> The Area Directors have been pushing very hard on the WG chairs 
> to make sure that we understand that the IETF sessions are *not* for
> presentations, but for discussion.

This makes a lot of sense -- the goal of the presentation is to clearly state the points for discussion. That being said, it does seem a little weird that drafts which haven't been mentioned on the mailing list are going to be discussed.

> So, again: If there is work that you think has relevance to the
> ROLL WG, then please bring it up on the list.  
> If it's not controversial, then we don't need to discuss it.
> 
> If it's very controversial, then we need to pin down the set of concerns
> we have with it, so that, next week, when are together, we can focus
> on the actual issues.  We aren't there to watch powerpoints.

Whether RPL should support mixed mode operation seems pretty controversial to me.

Phil