[11:57:18] --- SharonChisholm has joined
[11:58:08] --- becarpenter has joined
[12:02:15] <SharonChisholm> kessens.com/~david/presentations/OpsArea61.ppt
[12:02:40] <SharonChisholm> agenda bashing
[12:03:29] <SharonChisholm> It was on the mailng list
[12:05:24] <SharonChisholm> ---------
[12:05:28] <SharonChisholm> Opsec
[12:05:37] <SharonChisholm> Dave (AD) is speaking ...
[12:05:45] <SharonChisholm> Had a BOF .... created a working group
[12:06:11] <SharonChisholm> WG will deal with operational issues and capabilites that are needed in equipment in order to run a secure network
[12:06:24] --- dinakar has joined
[12:06:24] <SharonChisholm> Hopefully people are interested ... esp the operators
[12:06:51] <SharonChisholm> ------------------------------
[12:06:59] <SharonChisholm> AAA & Diameter
[12:07:08] <SharonChisholm> Not meeting ... they are nearly done
[12:07:20] <SharonChisholm> they have a few things left to finish
[12:07:56] <SharonChisholm> thinking about creating a diameter maintenance working group (diam)
[12:08:10] <SharonChisholm> modeled after TCPM (TCP Maintenance working group)
[12:08:36] <SharonChisholm> Might advance Diameter to DS
[12:08:50] <SharonChisholm> might have a BCP on interworking between AAA & radius
[12:09:06] <SharonChisholm> discuss new requirements
[12:10:21] <SharonChisholm> What do people think
[12:10:25] <SharonChisholm> <apathy>
[12:10:39] <SharonChisholm> Dave H - I feel I don't have enough information to make a decision
[12:10:43] <SharonChisholm> bert - mailing list
[12:11:02] <SharonChisholm> Q - it depends what people mean when they say maintance ... stuff you forgot to do the first time aroiund?
[12:11:17] <SharonChisholm> berrt - let's discuss further on the AAA mailing list
[12:11:30] <SharonChisholm> dave (AD) - this is the early warning about this
[12:11:31] <SharonChisholm> --------------
[12:11:34] <SharonChisholm> CAPWAP
[12:11:38] <SharonChisholm> just rechartered
[12:11:57] <SharonChisholm> good news - they had an aggressive charter and they met it.
[12:12:15] --- loughney has joined
[12:12:40] <SharonChisholm> New work ... to develop a standards track CAPWAP protocol
[12:12:48] <loughney> who was Dave H?
[12:12:49] <SharonChisholm> CAP == control and provisioning
[12:13:06] <SharonChisholm> - not other non-mgmt WAP issues
[12:13:14] <SharonChisholm> - aggressive deadline for objectives
[12:13:19] <SharonChisholm> Dave harrington
[12:13:31] <loughney> thx
[12:13:51] <SharonChisholm> Close co-coordination with IEEE 802.11
[12:14:54] <SharonChisholm> If they don't make their deadlines Bert will kill (6) the working group
[12:15:18] <SharonChisholm> --------------------------
[12:15:22] <SharonChisholm> Bridge MIB
[12:15:26] <SharonChisholm> Dave H has slides
[12:15:41] <SharonChisholm> Dave walks purposefully towards the stage
[12:15:52] <SharonChisholm> Carefully connects up his laptop
[12:16:06] <SharonChisholm> pauces to build interest
[12:16:07] <becarpenter> it's just like being there :-)
[12:16:12] --- rstory has joined
[12:16:33] <SharonChisholm> Vission Statement
[12:16:58] <SharonChisholm> - improve timeliness and effectiveness of standard MIB module development for 802.1 technologies
[12:17:12] <SharonChisholm> - distrivbute the editing/publishing work load
[12:17:31] <SharonChisholm> - transition MIB module development to the 802.1 content experts
[12:17:42] <SharonChisholm> - improve corss-SDO standardization of management
[12:18:09] <SharonChisholm> progress
[12:18:24] <SharonChisholm> - jan 2004 - IEEE Interim meeting ... Dan and Dave went to meeting
[12:18:40] <SharonChisholm> - agreement to appoint 'default' liaisons in 802 and IETF
[12:18:47] <SharonChisholm> - corss- organization review of new work
[12:18:54] --- becarpenter has left: Disconnected
[12:19:05] <SharonChisholm> - bridge MIB wg efforts will transition to 802.1 (pilot)
[12:19:19] <SharonChisholm> - IETF MIB Doctors will review MIBs (at least for transitions)
[12:19:22] <SharonChisholm> Progress
[12:19:36] <SharonChisholm> - ieee is pdf but will make MIBs available in ASCII on the website
[12:19:47] <SharonChisholm> - mib doctors have reviewed some of their mibs already
[12:19:56] <SharonChisholm> - bridge mib not accepting new work ....
[12:20:09] <SharonChisholm> Questions?
[12:20:24] <SharonChisholm> Dave disconnects his laptop and returns to his seat
[12:21:00] --- becarpenter has joined
[12:21:03] <SharonChisholm> bert - the comment I have is that the MIB doctors review all the MIBs from all of IETF .. if IEEE does a lot then there might be a prioritzation problems of which work for the MDs to do
[12:21:21] --- Suz has joined
[12:21:35] <SharonChisholm> Bert - many of us will end up using these MIBs in our products, so we want them to be food
[12:21:43] <SharonChisholm> <good rather than food>
[12:21:56] <SharonChisholm> Dave - they are considering having a single MIB editor in their working group
[12:22:05] <SharonChisholm> -------------
[12:22:42] <SharonChisholm> Dave (AD) has announced the availability of ip service terms document
[12:23:05] <SharonChisholm> ----------------
[12:23:18] <SharonChisholm> Collaboration for NGN NM
[12:23:29] <SharonChisholm> ITU-T has Focus group on NGN
[12:24:32] <SharonChisholm> other orgs (ETSI, OASIS,) providing inpujt in ITU-T FG
[12:24:45] <SharonChisholm> ITU-T SG4 now gets inpuit from a new FG on NGN management
[12:25:12] <SharonChisholm> we had informal (phone) discussions between people from many different SDOs on possibly working together
[12:25:22] <SharonChisholm> Open for (individual) participation
[12:25:50] <SharonChisholm> - mailing list, ftp, individual participation, had acall on November 1st with some IETFers
[12:26:02] <SharonChisholm> - we can individually or as a wg send input
[12:26:42] <SharonChisholm> bert - no serious binding committment ... I double checked with IESG and got the thumbs up (Y)
[12:26:57] <SharonChisholm> Bert - also posted information to ops-nm mailing list
[12:27:15] --- ggm has joined
[12:27:56] <SharonChisholm> We can suggest what of our documents we think might make sense in this context
[12:28:23] <SharonChisholm> NGN is telecom world accepts packet-based network ... some of the technology to be managed has come from the IETF
[12:28:43] <SharonChisholm> http:://ops.ietf.org/lists/ops-nm/ops-nm.2004
[12:30:25] <SharonChisholm> sharon - convergence and operational savings are key. Need to work all together
[12:30:43] <SharonChisholm> bert - top down currently versus bottom up
[12:31:15] <SharonChisholm> dave <someone> - also switching light paths ... supercomputtinig conference ... lots of people, not sure how to get them all involved.
[12:31:40] <SharonChisholm> bert - it is open .. contact dave sidor dsidor@nortelnetworks.com to get more info
[12:31:58] <SharonChisholm> dave <someone> - this is more global than the IETF so it is not clear to me where all this arrives
[12:32:17] <SharonChisholm> bert - some of this relates to the GMPLS work as well .... you are talking about layer 1 which is not the IETF
[12:32:26] <SharonChisholm> <national light rail>
[12:33:22] <SharonChisholm> brian c - made a comment about top down versus bottom up ... I think that this is such a messy area, I think there really is a need for an attempt to get a roadmap going with all these organizations ... otherwise we will have competitive stuff
[12:33:32] <SharonChisholm> brian - just felt it was important to say that
[12:33:35] --- kurtis has joined
[12:33:59] <SharonChisholm> bert - initially tried to shield people since it was administrivia ... now we can talk about architecture issues.
[12:34:04] <SharonChisholm> ------------------
[12:34:18] <SharonChisholm> Collaboration for Data Modeling
[12:34:46] <SharonChisholm> - collaboration w.r.t. webservices based nm ( GGF, DMTF, OASIS, W3C, IETF)
[12:35:05] <SharonChisholm> - had informal discussion between 'leadership' (so bert participated)
[12:35:09] <SharonChisholm> - information exchanged
[12:35:17] <SharonChisholm> - try to avoid duplicate work
[12:35:29] <SharonChisholm> - MoU being specified (?? Mnn ??)
[12:35:41] <SharonChisholm> - Impact on our (Netconf) datamodel
[12:35:50] <SharonChisholm> MoU = m of understanding
[12:36:42] <SharonChisholm> - coordination and communications
[12:36:59] <SharonChisholm> - ongoing template to track issues/actions in the 'landscape' of our work
[12:37:05] <SharonChisholm> - governance
[12:37:14] <SharonChisholm> - executive, technical, liaison-person
[12:37:26] <SharonChisholm> - pre-planned class and f2f meetings
[12:37:36] <SharonChisholm> - goa is to encourage information sharing
[12:37:43] <SharonChisholm> Initial Efforts/Tasks:
[12:37:47] <SharonChisholm> - Landscope doc
[12:37:56] <SharonChisholm> - Definitions and taxonomy doc
[12:38:07] <SharonChisholm> - White paper, FAQ, powerpoint presenations
[12:38:35] <SharonChisholm> bert - can agree with information sharing
[12:38:50] <SharonChisholm> bert - landscape document sounds ok
[12:38:57] <SharonChisholm> - whitepaper not so sure.
[12:39:07] <SharonChisholm> bert - mainly here to inform us as to what is going on ...
[12:39:42] <SharonChisholm> bert - eventually we will make this all public
[12:41:11] --- FP has joined
[12:42:19] <SharonChisholm> sharon - questions about when we find out
[12:42:22] <SharonChisholm> bert - soon
[12:42:47] <SharonChisholm> eugene - if we get involved in all these various people, we will slow us down
[12:43:26] <SharonChisholm> brian c - concern is valid ... important that the ietf does not become dependant on events in that procvess ... not the place to debate ... two approaches in industry ... people can debate for hours
[12:43:52] <SharonChisholm> brian c - need to avoid getting locked into that process .. but there are advantages to understand what all is happening
[12:44:09] --- loughney has left
[12:44:12] <SharonChisholm> bert - worried because we have less than less effort in the IETF ...
[12:44:26] <SharonChisholm> bert - you are all up- to date
[12:44:28] <SharonChisholm> ---------------
[12:44:36] <SharonChisholm> Network Management Considerations
[12:45:07] <SharonChisholm> IN routing area there is a indv. document draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt
[12:45:20] <SharonChisholm> Think all documents should have a network management considerations document
[12:45:24] <SharonChisholm> <some clapping>
[12:45:32] <SharonChisholm> why onlny in routing ... useful everywhere
[12:46:26] <SharonChisholm> often when you ask protocol people how we shall manage the protocol, you often uncover flaws in the protocol
[12:46:50] <SharonChisholm> of course some people think we already have too many mandatory sections in documnets
[12:47:31] <SharonChisholm> Dave m - think it is a good idea ... people should think ... mandatory sections ... they never really authoritative .. for example security considerations ... what we try to do is outline them.
[12:47:44] <SharonChisholm> dave m - don't want this to become a replace for detailed managemnet document
[12:48:05] <SharonChisholm> dave m - if we put a hard requirement that for a management section would that have saved the MPLS work?
[12:48:39] <SharonChisholm> bert - i don't think the intentions to replace management documnets. it is to get the working group to think about managemet from day 1.
[12:49:17] <SharonChisholm> Avri - one of co-authors ... 1) section on the content is empty 2) Looking for people to provide ideas
[12:49:42] <SharonChisholm> avri - there are some drafts experimenting with having this section ... please have a look
[12:49:56] <SharonChisholm> bert - point of time to influence ... excellent
[12:50:39] <SharonChisholm> dave p - good thing to have this section. Stuff I've learned - in many cases you don't know what you need to manage until you have operational experience
[12:51:12] <SharonChisholm> dave p - designers ... then users find creative ways to go and use it. Then the nobs they need and the instrumentation is not there. Or there other stuff we don't need
[12:51:25] <SharonChisholm> dave p - in general, it is ok ... too much detail, won't get it right
[12:52:01] <SharonChisholm> andy - comment ... we found at Cisco considering NM at start of project has positive impact. Considering it later makes it more expensive the longer you waity
[12:52:18] <SharonChisholm> andy - they odn't need the MIB, but they should identify what should be configured ....
[12:52:55] <SharonChisholm> --------------------------
[12:52:58] <SharonChisholm> Netconf
[12:53:01] <SharonChisholm> Simon
[12:53:43] <SharonChisholm> Status Update and Outlook
[12:54:11] <SharonChisholm> Charter told us to prodice protocol suitable for network configuration
[12:54:20] <SharonChisholm> - use textual data representation
[12:54:32] <SharonChisholm> - supports network wide configuration transactions (locking, rollback)
[12:55:00] <SharonChisholm> - is extensible enough that vendors will provide access to all configuration data on the device using a single protocol
[12:55:12] <SharonChisholm> - has a programmatic interface (no ....
[12:55:23] <SharonChisholm> specify requirements for supporting data models
[12:55:36] <SharonChisholm> - indentification of principles such as user names
[12:55:48] <SharonChisholm> - mechansims to distinguish confiug from other data
[12:55:57] <SharonChisholm> - xml namespace conventions
[12:56:02] <SharonChisholm> - xml usage guidelines
[12:56:25] <SharonChisholm> Have 4 working group documents ....
[12:56:31] <SharonChisholm> All in working group last call
[12:56:44] <SharonChisholm> thanks everyone
[12:57:10] <SharonChisholm> Bert - netconf was started to get operators involved in our nm work ...
[12:57:16] <SharonChisholm> bert <snmp history>
[12:57:28] --- dinakar has left: Replaced by new connection
[12:57:28] --- dinakar has joined
[12:57:29] --- dinakar has left
[12:57:44] <SharonChisholm> Bert - some operator involvement ... dimished recently ... any operators in the audience ... get involved ... make sure this stuff is usable
[12:58:15] <SharonChisholm> So will we be done when those are published
[12:58:32] <SharonChisholm> Andy - all participants drop off after the big picture is done.
[12:58:55] <SharonChisholm> Q - is there some sort of issue tracker to check whether an operator has reaised an issue that has been rejected
[12:59:02] <SharonChisholm> simon - no, but point taken
[12:59:28] <SharonChisholm> wg docs mostly treat xml configs as black boxes. Authorization etc. relegted to future data model
[13:00:06] <SharonChisholm> Take up data model work in netconf wg ... but to what extent
[13:00:26] <SharonChisholm> declare success and charter data wg
[13:00:32] <SharonChisholm> - we already had netmod bof
[13:01:05] <SharonChisholm> moratorium on netconf data model work
[13:01:10] <SharonChisholm> - use this to collect experience
[13:01:20] <SharonChisholm> - and/or leave to some other standards organizations
[13:01:29] <SharonChisholm> is there any low-hanging fruit?
[13:01:38] <SharonChisholm> - everybody at least use XML schema 1.0
[13:01:46] <SharonChisholm> - event this may be contentious
[13:02:08] <SharonChisholm> - define a few standard XML data types ... ip address, etc
[13:02:27] <SharonChisholm> leverage existing framework 0 but which one?
[13:02:41] <SharonChisholm> access to SNMP (SNMP MIBs via Netconf)
[13:02:50] <SharonChisholm> - for configurtation or just read-only access
[13:03:16] <SharonChisholm> read-only objects more interseting
[13:03:32] <SharonChisholm> randmon thoughts . looks at 3535 (IAB NM-WD report)
[13:03:46] <SharonChisholm> - contains the rationale of Netconf's formation
[13:04:02] <SharonChisholm> - mentions 'network-wide configuration schemas" as standardization condidate
[13:04:13] <SharonChisholm> - maybe that's an easier one toe start
[13:04:24] <SharonChisholm> those are his toghts.
[13:05:20] <SharonChisholm> andy - my concerns ... first .. there is a lot of value in consistency ... we take for granted that MIBs are written in the same language in a consistent way .. if you can read one mib, you can read them all.
[13:05:37] <SharonChisholm> andy - if we have a free for all ... we just won't get any consistency ... any training with one vendor won't be leverable to another vendor
[13:05:56] <SharonChisholm> adny - think we need a bottom up approach that we agree on the framework and structure of managemetn information
[13:06:12] <SharonChisholm> andy - there are considerations beyond the data model ... what does it mean to conform to the standard
[13:06:37] <SharonChisholm> andy - getting SMI and datatypes alone won't be easy ... that is the scope i WANT to see ... won't pretend it's easy
[13:07:00] <SharonChisholm> andy - getting to data model will be hard . ietf needs to look at new ways like this NM considerations section
[13:07:27] <SharonChisholm> andy - don't want to see a free for all ... the structure ... inet address ... what is a counter ... ew have speciic semantics associated with the building blocks of what we do
[13:07:39] <SharonChisholm> bert - you do want to seesome work done in this area
[13:08:29] <SharonChisholm> dave h - couple years IAB workship .. couple of problems ... SNMP was frowned on 'cause no full MIB and no config ... I think we made a mistake asking operations ... the problem is caused by the vendors
[13:08:39] <SharonChisholm> dave h - perhaps we should talk to the vendors ... why is this hard/
[13:08:46] <SharonChisholm> dave h - <vendor thing>
[13:08:52] <SharonChisholm> dave h - operators said CLI-like
[13:09:22] <SharonChisholm> dave h - beleived that the vendors are willing to go there, but they need building blocks that they can use to build a programmatic interfaces
[13:09:34] <SharonChisholm> dave h - i think we should standardize our CLI and I don't think netconf is it.
[13:09:55] <SharonChisholm> dave h - need standardization across vendors ... the fact that the IETF has not done this, the industry has hurt
[13:10:03] <SharonChisholm> dave h - if we don't do CLI, then netmod
[13:10:36] <SharonChisholm> Juergen - few points ... we should looke at relax ng since it is more readable ...
[13:10:54] <SharonChisholm> juergen - should do minimal thing ... no compliance ... no information model ... need to get it deployed
[13:11:01] <SharonChisholm> Juregen - compliace came later in SMI
[13:11:26] <SharonChisholm> juergen - guidlines for using <SChema/Relax>, Data types, and need to have interowrking considerations with SMI MIB modules
[13:11:37] <SharonChisholm> juergen - should recharter to do this
[13:12:12] <SharonChisholm> Steve - when we started netconf ... first protocol then model ... we called it the first thing since the other things are necessary in order to get interoperability.
[13:12:24] <SharonChisholm> Steve - we have a protocol, but nothing to run over it.
[13:12:46] <SharonChisholm> bert - like to encourage we take this discussion to the netmod mailing list. Let's take it there.
[13:13:07] <SharonChisholm> standards.nortelnetworks.com/netconf
[13:13:21] <SharonChisholm> Just send to the netmod mailing list
[13:13:31] <SharonChisholm> -------------
[13:13:35] <SharonChisholm> Cross area interest topics
[13:13:39] <SharonChisholm> Multi-six
[13:14:25] <SharonChisholm> Erik Nordmark
[13:14:36] <SharonChisholm> Multi6 Status
[13:15:01] <SharonChisholm> most things are almost finished
[13:15:28] <SharonChisholm> multi = multihoming <I think>
[13:15:37] <SharonChisholm> Design Team Status
[13:15:41] <SharonChisholm> - formed in San Diego
[13:15:53] <SharonChisholm> - delivered 5 IDs
[13:16:02] <SharonChisholm> being discusse dthis week
[13:16:21] <SharonChisholm> Design Team approach
[13:16:24] --- dinakar has joined
[13:16:38] <SharonChisholm> L3 Shim between IP endpoints and routing sub-layers
[13:16:48] <SharonChisholm> - below fragmentation, IP sec
[13:17:04] <SharonChisholm> - provide "services" to all transport Protocols
[13:17:14] <SharonChisholm> No New ID name space
[13:17:21] <SharonChisholm> - AAAA records contains same things a stoday
[13:17:42] <SharonChisholm> - application/transports use 'upper-layer ID"
[13:17:57] <SharonChisholm> shim switches locators when a failure
[13:18:48] <SharonChisholm> - using hash-based addresses (or CGA) to prevent redirection attacks
[13:19:02] <SharonChisholm> - when host has a fixed set of addresses,....
[13:19:18] <SharonChisholm> testing/probing to fins a working locator pair after a failure
[13:19:28] <SharonChisholm> <Is this an operator topic?>
[13:21:01] <SharonChisholm> Issues from design team
[13:21:05] <SharonChisholm> - need to handle ingress filtering
[13:21:21] <SharonChisholm> - exit router seclection based on source address for small sites?
[13:21:33] <SharonChisholm> - non-draft addresses this
[13:21:39] <SharonChisholm> - actiual packet formats
[13:21:49] <SharonChisholm> -interactions with applications and transport protocols
[13:23:05] <SharonChisholm> Other things needed
[13:23:38] <SharonChisholm> - need some understanding of what policy controls should (and can) be provided when using multiple, provider-allocated address previxes
[13:23:58] <SharonChisholm> - In IPv4 with provider independant address BGP provides tools to do this
[13:24:10] <SharonChisholm> - within multiple, aggregated PA prefixed things are differnet
[13:24:18] <SharonChisholm> - if you are interestedin this please get involved
[13:25:09] <SharonChisholm> Dave (ad) - because of this work started in ops area ... we agreed with other IESG types that we would talk to people in other areas wehn we got close to development protocols
[13:25:11] <SharonChisholm> ---------------------------------
[13:25:19] <SharonChisholm> Future of v5 ops
[13:25:22] <SharonChisholm> v6 ops
[13:25:29] <SharonChisholm> pretty much completed ...
[13:25:37] <SharonChisholm> recharter or shut down
[13:26:39] <SharonChisholm> ------------------
[13:26:58] <SharonChisholm> Dave M - no preso
[13:27:04] <SharonChisholm> report on one thing in ops working group ...new
[13:27:19] <SharonChisholm> cross-cordination effort ... us multicast protcocol group, pim and mpls group.
[13:27:34] <SharonChisholm> the exact issue was who owns which part of some sort of multipoint problem
[13:27:39] <SharonChisholm> we are going to form a design team
[13:27:48] <SharonChisholm> from multicast area ... lots of cross functional things
[13:27:53] <SharonChisholm> source discovery for ssm
[13:28:04] <SharonChisholm> we were educated yesterday that perhaps this could be done via sip
[13:28:26] <SharonChisholm> my comment to everyone .. if you have ideas of how to generalize this process or with to participate, please come find me
[13:28:29] <SharonChisholm> ------------------------------
[13:28:34] <SharonChisholm> Ops protocol work
[13:28:38] --- becarpenter has left: Replaced by new connection
[13:28:38] --- becarpenter has joined
[13:28:39] --- becarpenter has left
[13:29:04] <SharonChisholm> wanted on agenda .... brian c comment ... what was behind the story of not doing much protocol work in ops area
[13:29:11] <SharonChisholm> more time now to discuss
[13:29:40] <SharonChisholm> ops area is just the operations of the internet ... we don't tend to do protocol work. we could make an exception if necessary
[13:30:42] <SharonChisholm> dave m - i think i violate that role more than anyone ... we've done tons of protocols .. i think the role is good in general, but not applied too much
[13:31:15] <SharonChisholm> dave m - if operations group think works need to be done ... alternative we could solve this in procedural persepctive
[13:31:45] --- becarpenter has joined
[13:31:58] <SharonChisholm> dave m - we did some in mboned ... it's harder today do to tight charters and protocol people stand up and say it is protocol work but we are not going to do it ...we get let out in the cold
[13:32:38] <SharonChisholm> bert - make clear at some point may years ago .. ops and managemnet we were merged. management area always did protocol work ...
[13:33:19] <SharonChisholm> bert - if there are more appropriate areas or existing protocols, we can't start our own
[13:33:37] <SharonChisholm> bert - we are open for discussion, but the principle should be clear
[13:33:45] <SharonChisholm> bert - we look at requirements
[13:34:19] <SharonChisholm> p - to follow up on what dave m said, one issue is that the ops groups should not competing with other groups if they exist.
[13:34:50] <SharonChisholm> p - working group shopping to look for someoine willing to take on work .. that doesn't make sense ..
[13:35:14] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - easier to keep working groups a little bit focused if we don't do protocol work
[13:35:33] <SharonChisholm> dave (AD) - as soon as you get protocol work, things get large (personal view)
[13:36:09] <SharonChisholm> q - not so much worried about operations and management doing protocol work since they are tight. I'm more worried about all the other documnets being products
[13:36:11] <SharonChisholm> produced
[13:36:19] <SharonChisholm> charlie - going to say about the same
[13:36:30] <SharonChisholm> charlie - if chartered to do work. do it.
[13:36:52] <SharonChisholm> charlie - not a clear definition about what is operation and what is not. perhaps there isn't a clear border
[13:37:05] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - there isn't one and not sure one would be good
[13:37:19] <SharonChisholm> bert - agree - if we make strict rules on everything then changing them
[13:37:39] <SharonChisholm> charlie - then we cna't have well-haved works that are purely within the scope of the worknig group
[13:37:48] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - you will always need discussion
[13:38:38] <SharonChisholm> dave m - if wg charterd they should take on the work. If they don't want to do it, that says something about the work
[13:38:51] <SharonChisholm> dave m - i don't think I've ever been confused as to what a protocol is
[13:39:25] <SharonChisholm> q - some fuzzy areas v6ops ...
[13:39:31] <SharonChisholm> <specific examples>
[13:40:16] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - we want more focused working groups
[13:41:49] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - need to make sure that vendors need stuff. Things look small, but often have large consequences
[13:42:17] <SharonChisholm> q - one instance that doesn't advance protcol, but restricts ... which subset is useful for transition shoudl have a place to be done
[13:42:59] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - answer ... if I put a restriction in place ... willing to consider otherwise if the community says so
[13:43:08] --- FP has left
[13:43:49] <SharonChisholm> (^)
[13:44:15] <SharonChisholm> bert - as area directors we are not the boss
[13:45:13] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - question for curtis
[13:45:22] --- rstory has left: Logged out
[13:45:38] <SharonChisholm> curtis - in context of multi6 ... unhappy
[13:46:01] <SharonChisholm> <that was dave asking curtis>
[13:46:26] <SharonChisholm> curtis - <examples proving its tough to answer>
[13:47:03] <SharonChisholm> curtis - part of discussion ... we need to talk to each other .. closer cooperation between areas ...
[13:47:26] <SharonChisholm> curtis - more worried about other documents - BCP and informational and indv. submissions ... poor qualithy
[13:47:35] <SharonChisholm> curtis - that is where my concern is
[13:47:54] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) sense of room ... is the bar not high enough for non-protocol work
[13:48:38] <SharonChisholm> dave m - share curtis' concern ... the quality of our work ... criteria for information documents out of ops area ... its more the variance of the bar, ...
[13:48:47] <SharonChisholm> dave m - some good, some not so good
[13:48:55] <SharonChisholm> dave m - globally we are not so bad
[13:49:08] <SharonChisholm> dave m - think we can do better
[13:49:45] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) do people share this opinion
[13:49:54] <SharonChisholm> randy - which is "this"?
[13:50:00] <SharonChisholm> Dave (ad) - combination
[13:50:15] <SharonChisholm> Dave (ad) - some of the non-protcol work in operations area could be better
[13:50:21] <SharonChisholm> randy - ietf work in generral
[13:50:39] <SharonChisholm> randy - the varients in quality varies a lot
[13:51:31] <SharonChisholm> q - kind of agree with dave ... problem ... even if someone reviews more interesting work for protocols ... drop if we can't get reviewers?
[13:51:41] <SharonChisholm> q - more general here than opreations area
[13:51:48] <SharonChisholm> dave (ad) - we could be more tough
[13:52:30] <SharonChisholm> q2 - kind of share the views ... lots of variance .. good or bad not clear ... if something that we are talking about here is whether ietf should publish or should it be in a book instead.
[13:52:46] <SharonChisholm> q2 - or another forum ... webpage ... consultants
[13:52:53] <SharonChisholm> q2 - think about
[13:53:31] <SharonChisholm> randy - it might make sense .,.. 'operational considerations' section
[13:53:42] <SharonChisholm> randy - ops has done so many protocols since other messed up
[13:54:15] <SharonChisholm> ---------------
[13:54:31] <SharonChisholm> Open Mike
[13:54:44] <SharonChisholm> We are done (B)
[13:56:05] --- SharonChisholm has left
[13:56:14] --- Suz has left
[14:02:53] --- kurtis has left: Disconnected
[14:10:27] --- becarpenter has left: Disconnected
[14:14:55] --- dinakar has left: Disconnected
[14:15:50] --- ggm has left: Disconnected
[14:21:28] --- becarpenter has joined
[14:21:58] --- becarpenter has left
[14:25:28] --- dinakar has joined
[15:53:41] --- dinakar has left: Replaced by new connection
[15:53:41] --- dinakar has joined
[15:53:42] --- dinakar has left