Re: [rbridge] Draft TRILL agenda for Paris posted

Thomas et al,

Whilst I agree that oam should be given high priority, I disagree that oam work is not progressing. Mib and bfd have progressed quickly. In regards to ping and trace oam, there are reasons we were having discussions in the last ietf and over the mailing list. Hopefully we could close the remaining issues, very soon. I would rather prefer a well discussed solution rather than rushing an incomplete one to an rfc.

Cheers
Sam

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:21 PM, "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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

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