Re: [rbridge] Draft TRILL agenda for Paris posted

> A draft TRILL WG agenda for the Paris meeting has been posted to the
> meeting materials page
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/agenda.html

Looking at this agenda, my gut feeling is that it tries to cover too
many drafts and doesn't really have enough time do so
effectively. Most of the presentations get 10 minutes. That isn't
enough time to have any substantive discussion. IMO, too many ten
minute presentations are a waste of time.

Moreover, the vast majority of IDs are not even WG documents, so their
individual status within the WG is unclear. I am having trouble
figuring out which ones the WG actually cares about (and I should
spend time on) and which ones the WG really doesn't think need to be
pursued, at least not now. For example, does anyone who wants agenda
time automatically get a slot just for asking? What sort of filtering
takes place?

On the OAM topic, IMO, that is a critical one for the WG. TRILL does
not yet have a published RFC on TRILL. That is a critical deficiency.

Right now, a total of 30 minutes is devoted to OAM, covering the WG
document and two non-WG documents. Each gets 10 minutes time...

It would help me if the Chairs and/or WG added a note to each agenda
item and described what the purpose of the presentation is for. Is it
to ask to make something a WG documnt? Is it for something else? And
how many of the IDs that are being presented have been presented
before, with the WG not agreeing to take them on as a work item?

As I said back in Taipei, I think this WG needs to focus on getting
some of its core deliverables done. I'd like to encourage the chairs
and WG to think much more critically about the proposed agenda and
whether it makes good use of the WG's time.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge@postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge