Re: [sidr] Interim Meeting Dates/Locations (Proposed)

Terry Manderson <> Tue, 27 March 2012 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0ED921F8593; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.537
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4KWJFVempQq; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4661C21F8653; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:22:10 -0700
From: Terry Manderson <>
To: Christopher Morrow <>, "" <>, "" <>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:22:08 -0700
Thread-Topic: [sidr] Interim Meeting Dates/Locations (Proposed)
Thread-Index: Ac0LXuQExR1WRumXQyKDkBCVMo2CSAA+GRjn
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3415760528_9828932"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sidr] Interim Meeting Dates/Locations (Proposed)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:22:12 -0000

On 27/03/12 12:43 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <>

> So, as stated in the meeting today, and in these slides:
>   <>
> There is a proposal to schedule 5 future Interim Face to Face
> (+virtual) meetings. The dates/locations are:
> Mon Apr 30 - after ARIN (IAD)
> Wed Jun 6 - NANOG (YVR)
> Fri Jun 29 - (BWI/IAD)
> Fri Jul 27 - prior to IETF84 (YVR)
> Sun Sep 23 - prior to RIPE (AMS)
> The hope is that:
>   1) WG folks interested in the forward progress of the WG work can
> attend (either physically or virtually)
>   2) WG folk interested see this number of meetings (about 1/month for
> the next 6 months) as appropriate
>   3) the overlap/adjacency with existing operations meetings will help
> travel problems AND bring in some ops focus/requirements as well to
> the work.
> Please have a discussion on the applicability of the meetings (number
> and attendance capabilities) and let's close that discussion out ~Mar
> 29, 2012 23:59 Paris Local Time (CEST?).

I feel like the Monday meeting was a bit of a lost opportunity. I appreciate
that the presenters made effort in presenting, and making slides and
presenting ideas. However I feel like the "RPKI over Bittorrent" really
needed focused discussion on what the problem is, and a resulting definition
of what RPKI needs in a requirements spec to address the problems that were
alluded (and BTW I am more than happy to help form that set of
requirements). Equally I appreciate the time taken in predicting the signing
impact on router CPU, but without some more concrete lab work I felt a
little lost as being able to take anything away from it at this stage.

So I'm not intending to enter into a discussion on those topics here (but
will commit to posting on both those items on list), but for me I think this
speaks to the applicability of the interim meetings, so I humbly ask the
chairs to keep the agenda tightly focused. The reason is that I have every
intention of attending these meetings virtually, and will further try to
make it in person (budget pending) - but for both of these to get most
value, I would appreciate that it syncs up with documents in play.