Re: [rbridge] Draft TRILL agenda for Paris posted

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Thomas Narten <[e-mail]> 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   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

> Thomas

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[e-mail]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge