No. I don't see the need for it, and I don't think it would be useful. If others disagree they are free to step forward.1. We schedule two sessions.Why its not three 2H sessions? Have you tried?
Eh, from what I know of the IETF, send text. If you send in a draft and ask the secretariat to CC the multi6 list we will pick it up and ask you to present.2. The first session is early in the week, and have one topic. The proposals that have then been made formally to the IETF will each get around five minutes. Each presenter will be a member of a "panel".Formally? OK. When can I see formal call for proposals?
I don't think we are at the stage of formal proposals yet. I think we need to learn to walk before we start thinking of doing base-jumping.Note that people, including chairs, insisting on a requirement draft have been deprecating to discuss specific proposals.
I only see two major solution "classes" that have any wider support right now.3. The second session will be scheduled later in the week. This will concentrate on the two main proposals that are currently being worked on.Hugh? Two?
Something with wide support is better than something completed. It's not "first with code" it's "running code AND consensus".it is very clear that there is only two real solutions being worked on at the moment.Note that something being worked on is not better than something completed.