Hi, Lars, On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:35 AM Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > I'm guessing that this isn't on the agenda yet, because we haven't started discussing options in a specific thread (or threads) yet. We've expressed a lot of opinions, but I'm not sure I could even name the options that people have in mind. Is starting a new thread with "what to do about multicast" a good plan for us, to move forward towards IETF 109? Best, Spencer > 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 >
