I was just asking whether people thought that they coule make the additional time slot.
>From the tone of your message, you think you can. Thanks for the suggestion of choosing topics and the tie to idr, particularly the route leaks question. --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair ________________________________ From: Brian Dickson [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 6:36 PM To: Murphy, Sandra Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [sidr] replies needed quickly RE: possible additional meeting times Given that there is not a lot of lead time before this, *and* that the IDR meeting is immediate before this slot... And that there is a moratorium on -00 IDs (meaning any material under discussion is limited to already-submitted items)... Discussing the reqs doc then is fine. Perhaps the time slot adjacency to IDR might make for a good time to consider the issues relating to the material on route-leaks. I suspect that trying to conduct the full proposed agenda, would not be such a good idea. Too rushed, would do more harm than good. I would respectfully suggest that having an agenda of interest to the IDR folk, would actually be a good idea. It is entirely possible that insufficient input from IDR participants is leading to "group think", and that more diverse views would improve the WG output. I also suspect that attracting operator representation (who may be at IDR) would be beneficial as well. I think origin-ops, bgpsec-reqs, and bgpsec-ops would be a good slate. I do not think it would be timely to have a review of bgpsec-protocol, just yet, and in particular, might seem even more exclusionary to have this in the secondary SIDR slot. IMHO. Brian On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Murphy, Sandra <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: One important point. The routing AD needs to know the decision by COB UTC time on Tuesday (tomorrow). So replies are needed quickly. --Sandy ________________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:37 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [sidr] possible additional meeting times The routing ADs have suggested that sidr could use the cancelled EAI and/or the cancelled CODEC slot to make up for the cancelled virtual meeting. EAI was to meet 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I on Monday March 26. CODEC was to meet 1120-1220 Afternoon Session I Friday March 30. Please speak up as to whether either of these two spots would work. --Sandy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
