Re: [OPS-DIR] FW: BoF in Taipei
Fred Baker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
what is the [email protected] list being used for? On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:04 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Similarly, VPN4DC should be of interest to the OPS area. This was not > approved as > a BOF, but will be discussed in the L3VPN mailing list (now) and (if > there is sufficient interest) > in a L3VPN meeting in Taipei. > > You can find a brief description in http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki > > Please direct discussion of VPN4DC to L3VPN. > > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Please see the message from Adrian about the Software Driven Networks >> (SDN) BOF approved for Taipei. As Adrian puts it ' The BoF is nominally >> in the Routing Area, but I expect considerable involvement from the OPS >> Area.' Scheduling will avoid conflict with the area meetings and to the >> possible extent to the other WGs in OPS whose participants could >> contribute to this work (OPSAWG, NETCONF, NETMOD, V6OPS). The mail list >> is at http://www.lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:00 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected] >> Subject: BoF in Taipei >> >> Hi SDN list, >> >> I wanted you to know that the IAB and IESG met today to discuss BoFs for >> Taipei. >> >> They have agreed that we will hold a BoF for SDN with a goal of >> "discussing the >> technology and identifying work items". The BoF is nominally in the >> Routing >> Area, but I expect considerable involvement from the OPS Area. >> >> That means that it will not be designated a "working group forming BoF". >> In >> other words, the objective of the meeting will not be to discuss the >> precise >> nature of what a new working group would do (charter, scope, milestones, >> documents). Rather, it will try to reach agreement on what the topic >> actually >> is, what work is out there, what belongs in the IETF, who wants to do >> what, and >> how it breaks into manageable units, etc.. >> >> We may find that the outcome is a clear new WG. We might find pieces of >> work >> that belong in different existing WGs. We might find that all the work >> actually >> belongs in another body. And we might find that there is no work to be >> done. >> >> Over the next couple of days I will work with Tom on an initial draft >> agenda for >> the meeting which we will put to you for more debate and bashing. We >> have a 2 >> hour slot, so we should be able to cover quite a lot. >> >> I will also appoint chairs for the BoF relatively soon so that they can >> take on >> a guiding role leading up to the meeting. >> >> OK? >> >> Adrian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPS-DIR mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir >> > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir