[07:41:53] --- acmacm has joined
[07:53:07] --- staira has joined
[07:53:37] --- staira has left
[07:57:41] --- mattz has joined
[08:05:45] <mattz> I'm scribing, but will try to relay questions, and say where we are. Hopefully a jabber scribe will join.
[08:06:30] <mattz> test
[08:06:56] --- mattz has left
[08:07:12] --- mattz has joined
[08:08:22] --- mattz has left
[08:10:08] --- jaykarthik has joined
[08:10:15] <jaykarthik> Hi
[08:10:22] --- jaykarthik has left
[08:13:33] --- mattz has joined
[08:13:56] --- staira has joined
[08:15:14] --- mattz-test has joined
[08:15:42] --- jaykarthik has joined
[08:15:56] --- jaykarthik has left
[08:17:32] --- jaykarthik has joined
[08:18:22] <jaykarthik> I can hear well
[08:18:24] <jaykarthik> Thanks
[08:18:28] <mattz> excellent
[08:19:10] --- staira has left
[08:21:18] <jaykarthik> Al ... Slide 8. Sig support on List for BFD should be Y
[08:21:50] <mattz> we're on slide 6, i'll raise it when he gets to 8
[08:22:15] <jaykarthik> ok Mattz. Thanks
[08:22:33] <jaykarthik> Yes Al
[08:22:35] <jaykarthik> Thanks
[08:23:55] <mattz> chip on ipv6 benchmarking meth
[08:24:22] --- irino has joined
[08:35:13] <mattz> next up: protection mechonism draft, Jean-Louis Le Roux
[08:42:38] <jaykarthik> Could not hear Rajiv
[08:42:55] <mattz> Rajeev: depends on vendors to agree with this. From technical perspective, strongly support and agree.
[08:44:13] <jaykarthik> I agree 1 ms to be the right interval as well unless we hear from test vendors that this is too aggressive.
[08:47:04] --- staira has joined
[08:55:51] <mattz> next: krisztian nemeth on benchmarking resource resv mechanisms
[08:56:38] --- bmwgkd has joined
[08:57:15] --- irino has left
[09:08:30] <mattz> al: quick milestone review
[09:08:45] <mattz> slide 7 of orginal set.
[09:13:18] <jaykarthik> True Al. But we also need to benchmark the protocol BFD itself
[09:13:43] <jaykarthik> And that needs to ride solely as well besides the inclusion with other items.
[09:15:12] <jaykarthik> Sure .. but we can emulate a dummy client
[09:15:40] <jaykarthik> Just to benchmark BFD protocol
[09:16:41] <bmwgkd> Doesn't that better belong in the IRTF?
[09:17:43] --- irino has joined
[09:26:43] <jaykarthik> Good comment. That is precisely why we need to benchmark BFD seperately as well as with the other work items.
[09:28:15] <jaykarthik> But we need a methodology in place to ensure we are near the theoritical limits.
[09:30:01] <jaykarthik> That is in response to Ron
[09:30:12] <mattz> 1st good comment?
[09:30:22] <jaykarthik> Elia is it ? I lost the name
[09:30:25] <jaykarthik> sorry
[09:30:32] <mattz> second was ron. ok. we got it. no prob, i'm scribing and can't get it right
[09:30:43] <jaykarthik> ok thanks
[09:36:08] <jaykarthik> Author of LDP Spec has commented as well
[09:36:23] <bmwgkd> I've read the LDP I-D
[09:36:27] <jaykarthik> Bob Thomas.
[09:36:43] <jaykarthik> Kevin has read as well. That is good Kevin. Thanks.
[09:39:15] <jaykarthik> We will address that Al and Rajiv.
[09:40:49] <jaykarthik> OK noted. We will address it. Taking an action item to include the Configuration
[09:41:26] <bmwgkd> And it's good to know no messenger was harmed in the process of Rajiv's presentation.
[09:41:32] <mattz> :)
[09:41:45] <jaykarthik> :)
[09:48:52] <bmwgkd> How stable is the defining I-Ds? My concern w/this work (and BFD) is that we're chasing actively evolving targets. (Not good if you're trying to come up w/a univeral measurement paradigm.)
[09:56:02] <jaykarthik> Ron and Kevin - w.r.t. BFD, what might change with the parent IDs that are evolving is, how we detect failure rapidly (white box). However the fact that the failures need to be detected rapidly does not change and we could do black box measurements.
[09:56:03] <bmwgkd> 1) This is a very nice draft. 2) To counter thomas' points, we are a standards group, 3) agnostic/flexible may be the way to go - like the initial multicast RFCs from this group.
[09:56:11] --- irino has left
[09:56:36] <mattz> noted. don't think you'll make it to the mike (or I will make it to state publically in the room)
[09:57:30] <jaykarthik> no problem.Hopefully the minutes will capture this.
[09:58:18] <mattz> I'm sticking them in my notes.... feel free to comment once the minutes drafts come out
[09:59:48] <bmwgkd> Read the charter folks. We are not a operational measurement group.
[10:02:04] <jaykarthik> Thanks Matt. Bye everyone !
[10:02:06] --- jaykarthik has left
[10:06:13] <bmwgkd> I read the draft.
[10:07:11] <mattz> 'k
[10:07:14] <bmwgkd> I would like to see a change in scoping to more generic.
[10:07:58] <mattz> noted
[10:08:02] <mattz> meeting is over.
[10:08:49] --- staira has left
[10:08:57] <bmwgkd> Thanks Matt, fine job!
[10:09:21] --- acmacm has left
[10:09:25] <mattz> you're welcome
[10:09:27] --- bmwgkd has left
[10:09:28] <mattz> outta here
[10:09:34] --- mattz has left
[10:09:47] --- mattz-test has left