Subject: [rbridge] Draft TRILL agenda for Paris posted

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:33:33 -0400

Hi,

A draft TRILL WG agenda for the Paris meeting has been posted to the
meeting materials page
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/agenda.html

We are scheduled for a session first thing Monday morning and a
session about mid-day Friday. This is certainly not optimal but it is
a very crowded meeting and we were unable to move the Friday meeting
earlier. We could force everything to fit in the Monday session, which
is 2 1/2 hours, by cutting the time available for items but it is not
clear that is the best approach.

If you are a presenter and can't make the Friday session or can't make
the Monday session and haven't told me yet, please send me an email.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:37:02 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/agenda.html

Looking at this agenda, my gut feeling is that it tries to cover too
many drafts and doesn't really have enough time do so
effectively. Most of the presentations get 10 minutes. That isn't
enough time to have any substantive discussion. IMO, too many ten
minute presentations are a waste of time.

Moreover, the vast majority of IDs are not even WG documents, so their
individual status within the WG is unclear. I am having trouble
figuring out which ones the WG actually cares about (and I should
spend time on) and which ones the WG really doesn't think need to be
pursued, at least not now. For example, does anyone who wants agenda
time automatically get a slot just for asking? What sort of filtering
takes place?

On the OAM topic, IMO, that is a critical one for the WG. TRILL does
not yet have a published RFC on TRILL. That is a critical deficiency.

Right now, a total of 30 minutes is devoted to OAM, covering the WG
document and two non-WG documents. Each gets 10 minutes time...

It would help me if the Chairs and/or WG added a note to each agenda
item and described what the purpose of the presentation is for. Is it
to ask to make something a WG documnt? Is it for something else? And
how many of the IDs that are being presented have been presented
before, with the WG not agreeing to take them on as a work item?

As I said back in Taipei, I think this WG needs to focus on getting
some of its core deliverables done. I'd like to encourage the chairs
and WG to think much more critically about the proposed agenda and
whether it makes good use of the WG's time.

Thomas

---

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:21:57 -0700

Hi Thomas

Agree with you that we need to prioritize OAM and put that on critical
path.

Below you indicated that for 3 OAM drafts, 30 minutes allocated, you
mean to indicate that it is too much time or it is not sufficient and
need more time ? 

Thanks
Tissa 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:37 PM
To: Donald Eastlake
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft TRILL agenda for Paris posted

Looking at this agenda, my gut feeling is that it tries to cover too
many drafts and doesn't really have enough time do so effectively. Most
of the presentations get 10 minutes. That isn't enough time to have any
substantive discussion. IMO, too many ten minute presentations are a
waste of time.

Moreover, the vast majority of IDs are not even WG documents, so their
individual status within the WG is unclear. I am having trouble figuring
out which ones the WG actually cares about (and I should spend time on)
and which ones the WG really doesn't think need to be pursued, at least
not now. For example, does anyone who wants agenda time automatically
get a slot just for asking? What sort of filtering takes place?

On the OAM topic, IMO, that is a critical one for the WG. TRILL does not
yet have a published RFC on TRILL. That is a critical deficiency.

It would help me if the Chairs and/or WG added a note to each agenda
item and described what the purpose of the presentation is for. Is it to
ask to make something a WG documnt? Is it for something else? And how
many of the IDs that are being presented have been presented before,
with the WG not agreeing to take them on as a work item?

As I said back in Taipei, I think this WG needs to focus on getting some
of its core deliverables done. I'd like to encourage the chairs and WG
to think much more critically about the proposed agenda and whether it
makes good use of the WG's time.

Thomas

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:05:19 -0400

Hi Thomas,

> minute presentations are a waste of time.

Geez Thomas, you're always complaining :-)

> pursued, at least not now. ...

I believe that in all the cases of non-WG drafts at least the authors,
and in many cases others, would like them to become WG drafts. Very
vaguely speaking, I think the drafts earlier in the agenda are more
important except that one specific Data Center Interconnect author
asked to be on Friday and no other Data Center Interconnect author has
objected so that cluster is on Friday.

> not yet have a published RFC on OAM. That is a critical deficiency.

That's true but, while I know it is not what you are talking about,
the MIB draft is pretty much approved except for the resolution of MIB
Doctor comments and the BFD cluster has WG approval. The current
question is how to resolve the different proposals for more capable
OAM.

> document and two non-WG documents. Each gets 10 minutes time...

That's not exactly accurate but, in any case, I believe more time can
be allotted to OAM by taking some of the other drafts currently on the
agenda and just handling them on the mailing list. I do not agree that
the WG cannot advance at all in other areas while resolving OAM.

> before, with the WG not agreeing to take them on as a work item?

I'll post some annotations and suggested changes to the agenda
tomorrow. For example, I think I'm willing to withdraw the
presentations I was going to make and have them handled more
sequentially on the mailing list.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:13:50 -0700

Thomas et al,

Whilst I agree that oam should be given high priority, I disagree that oam work is not progressing. Mib and bfd have progressed quickly. In regards to ping and trace oam, there are reasons we were having discussions in the last ietf and over the mailing list. Hopefully we could close the remaining issues, very soon. I would rather prefer a well discussed solution rather than rushing an incomplete one to an rfc.

Cheers
Sam

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:15:36 -0400

> Geez Thomas, you're always complaining :-)

Yeah. Let me try to be a bit more constructive. :-)

> and in many cases others, would like them to become WG drafts.

Sure, that is often the case. In that case, I think the WG should:

1) explicitly decide how important a non-WG document is. For example:
   - yes, but this is not urgent, put on backburner
   - yes, urgent, lets make this a priority (and then make a WG doc)
   - don't really care, don't see the need, but harmless (maybe spend
     time if we have extra time...)
   - not really needed, please don't spend further WG cycles on the
     document 

For each draft, I think it would be good if we had that sort of
conversation. And not just keep working on all IDs by default. My
personal opinion is that the WG is spread a bit thin, and needs to
spend more time on core items. For example, there has been little
discussion on the OAM topics. Has the WG read the various  documents?
Can we make some decisions?

> Very vaguely speaking, I think the drafts earlier in the agenda are
> more important except that one specific Data Center Interconnect
> author asked to be on Friday and no other Data Center Interconnect
> author has objected so that cluster is on Friday.

I'd like to see the WG say "no" to documents that aren't critical and
then spend zero time on them during IETF week. IF we don't do that, we
will continue to have 10 minute presentations. In my experience, most
such presentations are useless. They just end up with "more discussion
needed, take it to the list". Repeat at next face-to-face meeting...

> question is how to resolve the different proposals for more capable

IMO, the MIB document needs more work and is not as ready as you
suggest. See David Bond's message at
http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/2012-March/004870.html.

It says:

    I've submitted a new revision of the
    draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-oam-02 which contains numerous changes as
    seen in the change list below. One of the bigger changes was after
    receiving input I removed a lot of the error codes that were in
    the previous version of the draft. The thought here was unless
    there is a clear need for an error type we shouldn't define it. If
    a use case comes up in the future the error code can be defined at
    that point.  Most of those error codes can be better represented
    in the MIB.

We need to decide whether to add more counters to the MIB, and if so,
do so.

> the WG cannot advance at all in other areas while resolving OAM.

I'm not saying we can't do other work. But I am saying we need to
prioritize and focus a proper amount of time on the priority
items. The current agenda does not have such a feel. It really looks
like every document is being given roughly the same amount of time.

As another example, I believe in Taipei
draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling-00.txt was mentioned as possible
priority item. But there has been no movement on the document that I
can see and it is not on the current agenda.

Another example, I believe there are some open questions about how to
proceed with draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension-03.txt. It would seem
desireable to talk about this document and how to proceed. But it is
not listed on the posted agenda.

> sequentially on the mailing list.

Looking forward to this! Thanks!

Thomas

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:46:53 -0700

Hi Donald,

I am sorry I have not closely followed the OAM thread for some time now.

I agree with the concern that OAM needs to be prioritized. I feel there are
a rich set of OAM mechanisms now being worked on, we however should work on
the first minimal set of Connectivity Verification (Ping/ Trace Route) and
Continuity Check (BFD) for unicast packets before we get into more
complicated mechanisms - like delays/ loopbacks etc.

I agree that the solutions we agree to should be well discussed.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:23:59 -0400

Attached is an annotated version of the currently posted agenda.

Thanks,
Donald