Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Terry Manderson
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 23/03/12 11:05 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> significant progress has been made on the topics here because of
>> frequent (monthly about) face-to-face meetings, focused meetings even.
>
> Wow.. that is news to me. Are those meetings under the guise of something
> other than SIDR? Do the SIDR WG chairs attend as WG chairs?  How does one

<http://www.potaroo.net/iepg/2011-03-ietf80/110327.iepg-bgpsec.pdf>

people attend as people, not as roles, in an attempt to get some
progress made. Traditionally these have been all-day-affairs
(slog-fests?)

> get invited to such a meeting? (it appears not to be self selected) and are
> there minutes/transcripts to those meetings? ok they are in the past, but it

i believe there are some minutes, I've not read them :(

> would help to read minutes/trasnscripts and thus maybe get a finer
> understanding about why decisions have been made in regard to the solutions
> presented thus far.

actually the sriram doc was an attempt at documenting that... it seems
some of the reasoning (looking at some of brian.dickson's comments, I
think it was him...) could use some fleshing out. It may actually be
useful to corner sriram at the next meeting and see if he could expand
context where necessary.

>> Would making the f2f meetings have virtual capabilities be acceptable?
>> (webex or the like, or maybe meeting rooms at diverse locations with
>> that fancy cisco meeting-room thing? or other of the same ilk?)
>>
>
> it depends. bad answer I know. but that's what you get without knowing the

suspected as much :)

> agenda, number of participants, history of past meetings etc etc...

so... number of participants probably would flex some, eh? and I
suspect the agendas could be figured out in advance of each meeting. I
also suspect that some of the agenda stuff would have to get done
serially? (or that's been the case so far) I suspect (example):
  april - route-leaks, what/where/how?
           beaconing, yes? no? impact (with/without?)
           cpe signing? impacts? costs? need?

  may - cpe impacts?
           without beaconing how's that cpe doing?

  june - route leaks, again, with progress on docs and maths

my point I suppose is, nailing down a 13-15month set of agendas
doesn't seem practical either... or fanciful at the very least :(
You'd probably either end up: "This meeting is coincident with
something else I have to be at, extend 1 day == win!" and some cases
of: "Yea, I can't go to arctic-nog...skip"

>> Are there enough central locations to where the folks who want to
>> participate to make more network connected office conversations
>> workable? (sunnyvale/pao/etc + washington + london + ???)

is the idea of showing up in 3 locations close to a majority of
participants and participating over video conference laughable or
possibly doable? (not just for terry the question here is meant for)

-chris