Hi, On 2020-10-27, at 21:50, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]> wrote: > Lars, you mentioned at the end of the virtual interim that we could have more > conversations "like this", which I took to mean "at least one more virtual > interim meeting on multipath".
due to scheduling constraints, there is no possibility to schedule another interim before 109. I'd ask that people continue discussing the topic on the list, with the goal of articulating a few options of what to do about multipath that we could then further discuss and eventually do a consensus call on. We plan on leaving some time on the agenda during 109 for this, but due to the ongoing LC on the base drafts and needing to push forward with currently-adopted WG items, it's a bit unclear whether this plan will pan out. It would IMO be worthwhile to schedule another interim on multipath (soon) after 109, but I'd like the mailing list discussion to progress towards plans for what to do about the topic - I don't think another interim on usec cases and requirements would be very productive. Thanks, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
