Re: [rbridge] Draft TRILL agenda for Paris posted

Hi Thomas

Agree with you that we need to prioritize OAM and put that on critical
path.

Below you indicated that for 3 OAM drafts, 30 minutes allocated, you
mean to indicate that it is too much time or it is not sufficient and
need more time ? 

Thanks
Tissa 

-----Original Message-----
From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:37 PM
To: Donald Eastlake
Cc: rbridge@postel.org
Subject: 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

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