[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Specific suggestions to improve San Diego agenda [Was RE: San Diego Agenda issues]

vishal, some hints inline, these may help

Vishal Sharma wrote:
Adrian and Kireeti,

Continuing with my previous email.... per your request below, here are some
specific suggestions on how the agenda for San Diego can be improved to
remove the pressure on it, thus benefitting the WG as a whole.

-Vishal


-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday,
July 22, 2004 4:01 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: San Diego Agenda
issues


All,

At the risk of seeming petulant...

You CANNOT [RFC2119] have both all drafts discussed and a reasonable length
discussion on any draft.

After Seoul we were told in the strongest terms by WG participants and by
the ADs that we MUST facilitate discussion at the face-to-face meeting.
Thirty five-minute slots may fill the time, but will achieve nothing.

We have made a draft agenda which is now full. We completely understand
that the work that you are doing in your drafts is more important than
anything anyone in the world is doing at the moment, but we do not
understand how you propose to cover your drafts on the agenda as it now
stands.

Of course, the chairs are only your humble servants, and if it is the will
of the WG to change the agenda that is fine with us so long as: - it fits
within the priorities and milestones in the charter - it conforms to the
requirements passed to us by the ADs - we do not end up with tiny slots and
no discussion on any draft

So, ask yourselves: - why does my draft need discussion in SD? - why can't
the discussion be on the list? - what will I recommend to be axed from the
agenda?

It may be of interest that to you to know that the ADs issued some guiding
principles: - don't discuss any 00 draft that was only published a short
time before the meeting - don't discuss any draft that has not had
discussion on the list - only discuss drafts where there are open issues -
build the foundations first - prioritise charter work above other work -
prioritise meeting the milestones above other charter work


I have examined the agenda in the light of the above questions, and have
looked at the drafts currently on it.

The following is meant to be a neutral assessment, based on closely following
the development of a good majority of the work on the agenda. [Disclaimer: It
_should not_ be interpreted as reducing the importance of any of the work. Rather, it is a serious attempt to take up the Chairs' request to solve the
agenda crunch (that we seem to be getting into more and more of late), so
that the WG as a whole benefits.]

i) First, I do not believe a mention by the Chairs, in less than 30-odd
seconds each, of over 15 drafts buys the WG anything.

By removing this, the WG saves a full 5 minutes right away.

-- If the Chairs, in fact, want to draw attention to these documents, why not
post your comments/urgings/admonitions with the pointer to these drafts directly to the ML? That is the right place to make the majority of the WG
aware of these important documents anyway.

-- Also, I noticed in some of your emails that you intended to "take a sense of the room" for some of the drafts on this huge list. 

-> i think that the intention was to launch the disucssion on the list (see
   several mails) and wrap-up them during these 5 minutes in order to see how
   to progress

I think that _should not_ be done.

-> but what you think is not imho the primary intention also keep in mind that
some of these drafts (such as <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-router-info-00.txt>
have just been made available and discussion just started)

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to get a sense of multiple drafts in
under 30 seconds each, and surely no fair sense can be got that way.

It it much better for the sense to be taken on the ML (which is the best place anyhow) where people have time to think and reflect, and then respond.

ii) Second, given that the ASON Routing Design team has just been constituted, and has only just begun its work, it is difficult to see why 10
minutes are being given to discuss this.

Their composition and charter have already been posted to the list and examined by all, so none of those bear repeating.

It should suffice for the Chairs to spend 2 minutes or so (if that) updating
the WG on it.


-> there is a first cut of the draft (intent is not to go through all the ml dt
   chartering discussions)

So we are now at +18 minutes (possibly 20).

iii) The end-to-end recovery document was already mature a while back, and
has been discussed at practically every IETF for the past several IETF's.

The issue of misconnections (for the purposes of this draft) has also been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the people who debated this issue
(which includes me). AFAIK, that was the only substantive addition made.

What other open issues are still left that cannot now be satisfactorily resolved on the mailing list and that require 5 minutes of the agenda? 

-> this time has been provided to wrap-up the work (when adrian says 5 minutes
   it is 2 slides) do this in a clever way would allow to not come back to it
   during next meeting(s)

It would seem that the last call can easily be done on the list (and is probably best done there), bringing us to +23 minutes (possibly 25).

iv) The segment recovery document was made a WG document after Seoul, but I
don't recall seeing any discussion on it since.

Clearly, either the WG has not found time to focus its attention on this work
between Seoul and now, or sufficient discussion has not been initiated on it
by the authors.

Either way, without any debate/discussion on the ML, this draft does not satisfy multiple criteria listed above, and it seems fair that the authors
should attempt to generate discussion on the list, or summarize things so it
can move forward. 

-> question is always the same there was lot of support to have this topic
   becoming a WG effort so issue

We are now at +28 minutes (possibly 30).

v) I am not sure I saw the graceful shutdown draft discussed (maybe its a
split off of some related work), but if it's new work with no discussion yet,
I would say we do not need 5 minutes for it.

-> <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2004/msg00225.html> and follow up

vi) The comments for the L2 GMPLS draft say "what it's about?".

It seems that any draft for which this question needs to be answered at a WG
meeting probably first needs to be discussed on the list,  and automatically
does not meet multiple criteria from those you listed earlier.

Maybe I missed it, but can anyone point out where on the ML this draft was
discussed? And, what the outcome of those discussions was?


-> there is an open discussion point since minneapolis here, with the support
   this document received we're waiting for a go ahead

So it seems we can save a full 33 minutes (possibly 35, or 38 without graceful shutdown) from the agenda with substantial consequent benefit to the
WG, by freeing up time for various other important activities (debates,
discussions of other drafts, issues, etc.)

It would be good to hear if the WG believes that the above suggestions do not
benefit the WG and/or should not be implemented (and why).

-> this decision is imho at the discretion of the WG chairs imho, this said i strongly believe that managing situation in a fairly way is time and effort consuming ... no surprise here

Looking forward to seeing a revised agenda.

Thanks, -Vishal




.