Re: Draft plenary agendas

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

> 2) IMHO, The open plenaries have always been lousy venues for
> systems/inter-WG discussion. The times we've had useful input on it, it's
> either been as a result of structured presentations (Steve D's wineglasses
> in London) or as a result of pure dumb luck. They are much better for
> venting/discussion about issues that pertain to the entire IETF.
>

I thought the presentation discussion last time about the advisability of
not doing checksums for real time traffic was pretty good. The presentation
and discussion were pretty structured, but they did get at a cross-WG issue
well. I haven't heard of any followup, but it might be playing out in the
relevent WGs. I do agree that unstructured plenary discussion on cross-WG
issues won't work well.

But if you have anybody has other ideas about how to facilitate this, it
would be interesting to hear them. It is one area that think still needs
some attention.

            jak