Re: [rbridge] Draft TRILL agenda for Paris posted

Hi Donald,

I am sorry I have not closely followed the OAM thread for some time now.

I agree with the concern that OAM needs to be prioritized. I feel there are
a rich set of OAM mechanisms now being worked on, we however should work on
the first minimal set of Connectivity Verification (Ping/ Trace Route) and
Continuity Check (BFD) for unicast packets before we get into more
complicated mechanisms - like delays/ loopbacks etc.

I agree that the solutions we agree to should be well discussed.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Geez Thomas, you're always complaining :-)
>
> > 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. ...
>
> I believe that in all the cases of non-WG drafts at least the authors,
> and in many cases others, would like them to become WG drafts. Very
> vaguely speaking, I think the drafts earlier in the agenda are more
> important except that one specific Data Center Interconnect author
> asked to be on Friday and no other Data Center Interconnect author has
> objected so that cluster is on Friday.
>
> > On the OAM topic, IMO, that is a critical one for the WG. TRILL does
> > not yet have a published RFC on OAM. That is a critical deficiency.
>
> That's true but, while I know it is not what you are talking about,
> the MIB draft is pretty much approved except for the resolution of MIB
> Doctor comments and the BFD cluster has WG approval. The current
> question is how to resolve the different proposals for more capable
> OAM.
>
> > 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...
>
> That's not exactly accurate but, in any case, I believe more time can
> be allotted to OAM by taking some of the other drafts currently on the
> agenda and just handling them on the mailing list. I do not agree that
> the WG cannot advance at all in other areas while resolving OAM.
>
> > 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?
>
> I'll post some annotations and suggested changes to the agenda
> tomorrow. For example, I think I'm willing to withdraw the
> presentations I was going to make and have them handled more
> sequentially on the mailing list.
>
> > 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
> > Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge@postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>