Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] 2014-05-28 Meeting minutes

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:15:45 +0200

We had quite productive meeting today. There were some issues with
JitMeet, so we switched to WebEx. Thanks to Bernie for providing this
backup.

Attendees:

- Andrew
- Bernie
- Leaf
- Marcin
- Michael
- Sheng
- Tomek (late! I'm terribly sorry for that)

We discussed couple points.

1. Terminology review. We confirmed/decided to go with the following:
requesting/delegating router => client/server
IA - we'll keep IA throughout the text
address or prefix will be called "resource" or "allocated resource"

Tomek's afterthought: "allocated" is maybe not the best word here, as
this name will be used for describe things put in SOLICT (nothing
allocated yet) or in REPLY to RELEASE (nothing allocated anymore). So
maybe "allocatable" instead of "allocated" would be better? Or simply
stateful resource? But that would possibly open up a discussion about
what stateful means? The simplest way to solve that is to explain that
stateful is an option that has its own state that is tracked and changes
over time.

2. We discussed how to do the merge. The decision was to assign a couple
sections to everyone. Bernie proposed to create tickets for each
section. Tomek volunteered for that as he'll need to assign the sections
anyway.

Here's the split proposed by Tomek:
Sheng #1 (0.7), #2 (0.2), #15 (0.5), #19 (0.1)
Michael #3 (0.2), #4 (0.2)
Bernie #5 (1.8), #6 (0.7), #17 (0.5)
Tomek #8 (0.2), #9 (1.8), #10 (1.5)
Marcin #11 (1.5), #12 (2.5)
Andrew #7 (0.7), #13 (0.5), #14 (0.2), #16 (0.3)

Feel free to unassign if you don't like specific section.

Numbers in parentheses say how big (in pages) a section is. Michael got
just two small sections, because he's busy with Nomcom. Marcin got only
two, but they are quite big. I tried to split it more or less evenly
otherwise. See created tickets 96 to 113. I did not create tickets for
sections 18 (references), 20 (authors' addresses) and 21 (full copyright
statement).

3. We went through the tickets that are in B category and assigned those
that don't have owners yet (or confirmed that assignee is correct):

Bernie - task #53.
Tomek - task #83.
Andrew - task #92.
Tomek - task #93.
Marcin - task #94.
Sheng - task #13.
Bernie - task #14.
Tomek - task #16.
Andrew - task #17.
Bernie - task #19.

4. We decided that the deadline for all assigned tasks is July 4th, as
this is the cut-off date before Toronto meeting. Michael suggested that
if we won't manage to close everything, we should upload whatever we
have. That's a fine suggestion and everyone agreed with that.

Tomek

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 11:03:18 -0400

BTW: I emailed the jitsi people and told them of our experiences.
Curious if I captured it correctly.  I am hoping to use it for nomcom2014...

From:  Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
To: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: JitMeet video conference trial
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:14:55 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]

Hey, so the dhc3315bis group tried jitsi this morning (8am EDT, if that helps
for logs).

Two guys could hear/see each other, but the rest of us, despite connecting
and being able to see our own face, could not hear or see the others, and
they could not hear/see us.  We could chat, and we could see that we were in
the same conference call.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-