-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/08/2011 12:20 PM, Josh Howlett wrote: > Klaas, > >>> Thanks for pulling this together. However I'm wondering if it's >>> really necessary to devote nearly 50% of the first session to >>> discussion of an ABFAB implementation. I would be more inclined to >>> spend this time on discussion of the architecture and use-case >>> documents. >> >> Well, one way of saying it is "nearly 50%", the other is "only 25 >> minutes" ;-) Do you really think you can do with much less than that? > > Well, I'm questioning whether a Moonshot update is appropriate given the > demands on time. > > We would be very happy to do an update, but I wouldn't want to consume time > that could be better spent discussing ABFAB documents. > > Do Eliot and Rhys, as editors of the other two documents, have a view on > this? I was assuming that discussion of these two docs alone could take 60 > minutes, but perhaps not.
I think we could slim the moonshot update a bit if you like but I also think there should interest from the community in seeing that abfab isn't just an intellectual exercise. How about we give you guys a 15 minute slot at least for an update on the implementation work and devote a 15 minute slot to technical discussion and feedback on the topics covered during the session? In planning this we've looked at a model which has been successful in the yang WG which also separate work into a first session which is more accessible to people who are not deeply involved in the core protocol work and a second session which assumes more deep involvement from participants. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk12FFIACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZndO8wCeImTY4mHb8wO69YA3R099cUtR XYgAoMHN5dsA9pKZQc0WI4y1+iqWttH6 =7zI7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
