Really a simple question and you covered it. As practically everyone knows, I'm against promoting the blizzard of documentation being spawned these days and keeping to a minimal number of documents that encompass problem, architecture and any generated specifications as part of a solution. 8^)
Train missed, so-be-it … From: Benson Schliesser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 5:58 PM To: Ken Gray <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Matthew Bocci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Slot request for NVo3 Interim virtual meeting scheduled for Sept 11th Hi, Ken. Just to make sure we are on the same page...: Linda and her co-authors of draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues chose to write a document describing a specific part of the NVO3 problem instead of contributing it to the primary WG Problem Statement. Perhaps this was suboptimal, resulting in extraneous documents, and the chairs (I.e. me) should have directed the work differently. Or perhaps there is a significant contribution to our understanding of the problem space that required elaboration beyond what fit neatly into the WG Problem Statement document. We are at a point where the primary Problem Statement is done, submitted for publication, and we have to decide what to do with the aforementioned Mobility Issues document. So, I've asked Linda to help us figure out what we need to do, by presenting this draft at the interim and to make sure a discussion happens. I'm glad to see that she is going to do that. Which brings us to your note. Are you trying to say something about how the WG should handle the draft? Or am I reading too much into it, when its really just a simple question..? Thanks and Cheers, -Benson On Sep 1, 2014 2:29 PM, "Ken Gray (kegray)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Wouldn't you just take that up with the authors? From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Sunday, August 31, 2014 9:21 AM To: "Sam K. Aldrin" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Benson Schliesser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Matthew Bocci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Slot request for NVo3 Interim virtual meeting scheduled for Sept 11th Sam, Can you give us a slot to present draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues? Mainly to show substantial content in this draft with regard to VM mobility in DC that are not in the NVO3 problem statement. Thanks, Linda From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam K. Aldrin Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:56 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Benson Schliesser; Matthew Bocci Subject: [nvo3] Slot request for NVo3 Interim virtual meeting scheduled for Sept 11th Hello NVo3 WG, As you have seen on the NVo3 Mailing list about interim meetings, the first interim meeting is scheduled for 12:00PM EST/ 9AM PST, Sept 11th 2014. There will be two other meetings planned, before we meet F2F at Honolulu. These interim meetings are virtual and we will be using Webex as the tool. Webex details for Sept 11th meeting will be sent via separate email. This email is to solicit slot request for Sept 11th meeting. The primary focus of this meeting will be a) any business related to re-chartering. b) working on the remaining drafts including requirements, use-cases, etc. Kindly email me, with subject line intact, so that request could be considered to be put on the agenda. Once the agenda is finalized, will post it accordingly. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers -sam
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
