On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On 23/03/12 11:05 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> significant progress has been made on the topics here because of >> frequent (monthly about) face-to-face meetings, focused meetings even. > > Wow.. that is news to me. Are those meetings under the guise of something > other than SIDR? Do the SIDR WG chairs attend as WG chairs? How does one
<http://www.potaroo.net/iepg/2011-03-ietf80/110327.iepg-bgpsec.pdf> people attend as people, not as roles, in an attempt to get some progress made. Traditionally these have been all-day-affairs (slog-fests?) > get invited to such a meeting? (it appears not to be self selected) and are > there minutes/transcripts to those meetings? ok they are in the past, but it i believe there are some minutes, I've not read them :( > would help to read minutes/trasnscripts and thus maybe get a finer > understanding about why decisions have been made in regard to the solutions > presented thus far. actually the sriram doc was an attempt at documenting that... it seems some of the reasoning (looking at some of brian.dickson's comments, I think it was him...) could use some fleshing out. It may actually be useful to corner sriram at the next meeting and see if he could expand context where necessary. >> Would making the f2f meetings have virtual capabilities be acceptable? >> (webex or the like, or maybe meeting rooms at diverse locations with >> that fancy cisco meeting-room thing? or other of the same ilk?) >> > > it depends. bad answer I know. but that's what you get without knowing the suspected as much :) > agenda, number of participants, history of past meetings etc etc... so... number of participants probably would flex some, eh? and I suspect the agendas could be figured out in advance of each meeting. I also suspect that some of the agenda stuff would have to get done serially? (or that's been the case so far) I suspect (example): april - route-leaks, what/where/how? beaconing, yes? no? impact (with/without?) cpe signing? impacts? costs? need? may - cpe impacts? without beaconing how's that cpe doing? june - route leaks, again, with progress on docs and maths my point I suppose is, nailing down a 13-15month set of agendas doesn't seem practical either... or fanciful at the very least :( You'd probably either end up: "This meeting is coincident with something else I have to be at, extend 1 day == win!" and some cases of: "Yea, I can't go to arctic-nog...skip" >> Are there enough central locations to where the folks who want to >> participate to make more network connected office conversations >> workable? (sunnyvale/pao/etc + washington + london + ???) is the idea of showing up in 3 locations close to a majority of participants and participating over video conference laughable or possibly doable? (not just for terry the question here is meant for) -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
