Thanks Joe. 10 to 15 minutes each will be enough. I'll be the presenter. As for the NTF draft, I don't recall there was general concern in 102 that this work may not be relevant to the IETF. If anybody think so, please be specific why. We have talked about the motivation in the draft and wish we can provide something useful to IETF, so we are open to hear any comments and opinions. Thanks!
Haoyu -----Original Message----- From: Joe Clarke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 2:20 PM To: Haoyu song <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Request for presentation slots in IETF103 On 10/22/18 16:42, Haoyu song wrote: > Dear OPSAWG chairs, > > > > I'm writing to request two presentation slots to cover the following > two > drafts: > > > > 1. Newly submitted: In-situ Flow Information Telemetry Framework > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/ > > Abstract: In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (iFIT) is a framework > for applying > > techniques such as In-situ OAM (iOAM) and Postcard-Based Telemetry > > (PBT) in networks. It enumerates several key components and > > describes how these components can be assembled to achieve a > complete > > working solution for user traffic telemetry in carrier networks. > > > > 2. New version: Network Telemetry Framework > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ntf/ > > > > We'll address the comments and suggestions from reviewers and > presentation we made > > in this latest version. > > > > Thank you very much for considerations! Good news. The ADs have granted us some of the Ops Area time. Given that, we can add timeslots for your drafts. How much time will you need (max 15 minutes per draft)? Who will present? Will the presenter be in BKK? Remember, we're looking for presentations that focus on open issues and questions for the WG. Do not walk through the draft. Pre-seed the WG with questions so that people can come prepared to contribute. Specifically with NTF, there has been some comments on list of late (which is good), but there was general concern in 102 that this work may not be relevant to the IETF. I would appreciate you addressing the relevance question. Thanks. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
