Re: IETF-106 agenda?

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Sat, 09 November 2019 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6D912008D for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:28:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AAlk1ZmQ8IkX for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA08712001A for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7E9A91E2F5; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 14:32:00 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 14:32:00 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: IETF-106 agenda?
Message-ID: <20191109193200.GD19227@pfrc.org>
References: <20191101181535.GA10713@pfrc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191101181535.GA10713@pfrc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/9vACBqEElwt3poV4o2k2TASsJYk>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:28:15 -0000

Working Group,

We will be attempting to meet at IETF-106.  There's just enough business to
discuss to warrant using our time slot.

Note as below: We do not currently have a minutes taker.  If we do not have
one (ideally volunteering ahead of time) by meeting start time, we will
suspend without a meeting.

The authors of BFD for vxlan are requested to prepare slides covering
changes since the last IETF and a summary of the rather energetic discussion
we've had since that meeting.  Additionally, please summarize the open
issues since we have a few still being discussed on the list.

Please recall that BFD is meeting on Tuesday.  Please send me your slides by
Sunday.

-----

Current targeted agenda:

Chairs update:
  5 mins - Jeff Haas

BFD for vxlan: 
  15 minutes - TBD

BFD for Large Packets:
  5 minutes - Jeff

BFD Demand Mode:
  10 minutes - Greg

Using One-Arm BFD in Cloud Network:
  10 minutes


-- Jeff


On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:15:35PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Working Group,
> 
> A session request had gone in for IETF 106 to accommodate the need for a
> possible session.  The agenda, to this point, had been left as an open
> question primarily to accommodate need to close on lingering questions in
> active work.  In particular, this was for two items:
> 
> - BFD for vxlan
> - BFD for Large Packets
> 
> (For transparency, I am an author on BFD for large packets)
> 
> As of this afternoon, we seem to have drafts submitted that cover the known
> open issues on both of these drafts.  In particular, the work to get us to
> the latest draft for the vxlan document took over 150 messages.
> 
> If BFD meets, agenda time was primarily reserved to reconcile open issues on
> these documents.
> 
> Discussion on BFDv2 is currently deferred for next IETF to focus the Working
> Group's limited attention on closing open work.
> 
> That said, if we have other topics to consider, please submit them for
> consideration.  If we have no such topics, and the discussion on the above
> two drafts seems likely to conclude well over e-mail, we may consider
> canceling the session.
> 
> As a final note, since Reshad is unable to make it to IETF-106, if we do
> decide to continue with our meeting, we will require the commitment for a
> minutes taker.  Reshad and I often will cover that for each other over the
> course of a session, but I won't be able to sustain that on my own.
> 
> -- Jeff, for the chairs.