Re: [sidr] replies needed quickly RE: possible additional meeting times

["Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]>]

I was just asking whether people thought that they coule make the additional time slot.



>From the tone of  your message, you think you can.



Thanks for the suggestion of choosing topics and the tie to idr, particularly the route leaks question.



--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair



________________________________
From: Brian Dickson [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 6:36 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sidr] replies needed quickly RE: possible additional meeting times

Given that there is not a lot of lead time before this, *and* that the IDR meeting is immediate before this slot...
And that there is a moratorium on -00 IDs (meaning any material under discussion is limited to already-submitted items)...

Discussing the reqs doc then is fine.
Perhaps the time slot adjacency to IDR might make for a good time to consider the issues relating
to the material on route-leaks.

I suspect that trying to conduct the full proposed agenda, would not be such a good idea. Too rushed, would do more harm than good.

I would respectfully suggest that having an agenda of interest to the IDR folk, would actually be a good idea.

It is entirely possible that insufficient input from IDR participants is leading to "group think", and that more diverse views would improve the WG output.

I also suspect that attracting operator representation (who may be at IDR) would be beneficial as well.

I think origin-ops, bgpsec-reqs, and bgpsec-ops would be a good slate.

I do not think it would be timely to have a review of bgpsec-protocol, just yet, and in particular, might seem even more exclusionary to have this in the secondary SIDR slot.

IMHO.

Brian

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Murphy, Sandra <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
One important point.

The routing AD needs to know the decision by COB UTC time on Tuesday (tomorrow).

So replies are needed quickly.

--Sandy

________________________________________
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:37 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [sidr] possible additional meeting times

The routing ADs have suggested that sidr could use the cancelled  EAI and/or
the cancelled CODEC slot to make up for the cancelled virtual meeting.

EAI was to meet 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I on Monday March 26.
CODEC was to meet 1120-1220 Afternoon Session I Friday March 30.

Please speak up as to whether either of these two spots would work.

--Sandy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr