Re: IETF-106 agenda?

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

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.