Was the WG consulted on scheduling this virtual meeting and I missed the message?
The first message I see on the matter is the announcement of the meeting on 3/7. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm traveling to Paris the day it's scheduled (actually ON the plane during the meeting), and based on a couple of messages in response to the general announcement (on ietf@ietf), I'm not the only one. My travel arrangements have been made for significantly more than 3 weeks, as are most people's when planning a trip to IETF. Virtual meetings don't need as much advance notice due to the fact that no one needs to travel to *attend* but scheduling conflicts do exist. As far as I can tell, there was no attempt to determine the appropriateness of the date for this or the previous Interim with the WG prior to setting the date. I know of several folks who found out about it during NANOG and would have liked to attend, but couldn't rearrange their travel plans at the last minute. In the future, I respectfully ask the chairs to solicit opinions on potential scheduling of interim meetings PRIOR to setting the date. I have no problem with there being a self-selecting core group of folks that make up a design team, but when they are working directly with the chairs to schedule supposedly official WG interim meetings without involving the WG until the dates are already set, we have a problem. For that matter, I believe that this interim/virtual meeting should be rescheduled once an appropriate date can be determined based on consensus of the *entire* WG. Put up a doodle poll with some potential dates, publish it along with the goal of the meeting to [email protected] and let those interested in attending choose. Thanks, Wes > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Murphy, Sandra > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [sidr] agenda for virtual meeting Mar 24 > > Here is the agenda for the sidr virtual meeting on Sat 24 Mar 2012. > > UTC 0800-1030. Protocol spec > In depth protocol review, doc structure, forward path, etc. > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-02 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol > > UTC 1030-1230 Break > > UTC 1230-1330 > draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-15 > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-03 > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-04 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops > (if there is time, discussion of > draft-ymbk-bgpsec-rtr-rekeying-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-bgpsec-rtr-rekeying > draft-rogaglia-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rogaglia-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-00) > > > UTC 1330-1430 Alternate architectures > RPKI delivery and scaling > > UTC 1430-1600 pfx-validate > recent discussions on the sidr list. > draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate > > --Sandy, speaking as working group co-chair > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
