> On 6 Dec 2022, at 07:57, Dirk Trossen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why not doing a series of side meetings and see how it develops? No reason to > stick an "operational" name to it, like "shadow RRG" or similar.
I support this idea. I see that there is “something” to be discussed and a side meeting is a very good idea. Looks too early to stick a name on it…. Ciao L. > > Happy to see such side meetings to happen and progress. > > Dirk > > > > > From:Dino Farinacci <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To:Stewart Bryant <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc:Matt Mathis <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>;Jon Crowcroft > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;BIER WG > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;tsv-area <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>;pim <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>;routing-discussion <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date:2022-12-05 21:37:32 > Subject:Re: [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols > > > One thought is that we set up a shadow RRG operating independently of the > > IETF meeting but meeting concurrently and at the same location. This is > > what BoFs used to be before the IETF apparatus got hold of them and > > formalised them. We can still use the draft infrastructure. If we cannot > > have a IETF list, there is groups.io <http://groups.io/> or similar. All a > > bit like Internet Routing where we route around damage to the > > infrastructure. > > I'd be all for this idea. > > Dino > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
