Subject: [rbridge] Call for agenda items

From: erik.nordmark at sun.com (Erik Nordmark)
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:03:52 -0700

What drafts and other issues will there be to discuss at Vancouver?

   Erik

---

From: harald at alvestrand.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:55:40 +0200

Erik, Joe:

from one of Joe's messages I get the impression that there is a short-term 
plan for what documents will be written and when they will be published.

I assume that you as chair know what they're doing, Erik.

Perhaps you could keep us updated on that plan, so that you can instead 
call for "any OTHER items"?

                   Harald

--On mandag, oktober 03, 2005 07:03:52 -0700 Erik Nordmark 
<erik.nordmark at sun.com> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:44:46 -0700

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Erik, Joe:
> 
> from one of Joe's messages I get the impression that there is a
> short-term plan for what documents will be written and when they will be
> published.

Yes. The general plan we discussed at the last meeting started with
factoring out the current document into three:

	1. problem statement
	2. architecture
	3. protocol

The current doc encompasses most of #1 and #2, but only a little of #3.

I expect we will have drafts of the first two by the cutoff (where
preliminary versions will be ready for help from contributors in a few
days).

Question: should these be individual submissions at this time, or issued
as WG docs (since they're not listed in the charter, it's hard to see
which way to go, though either should be fine).

Joe

---

From: erik.nordmark at sun.com (Erik Nordmark)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:30:59 -0700

> which way to go, though either should be fine).

It makes sense to keep them as individual and then we can ask the WG for 
each one of them whether the WG wants to adopt them as the basis for the 
WG deliverables.

To answer Harald's question: there is also a "trill requirements on 
routing protocols" draft in the works.

But if there is additional things of interest (for instance, if the 
IS-IS extensions to support trill like things show up as an I-D), then 
it would be good to know since we should at least have such a thing as a 
FYI on the agenda (even though it would be the ISIS WG that would deal 
with any such extensions.)

   Erik

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:20:48 -0700

> each one of them whether the WG wants to adopt them as the basis for the 

AOK.

Joe