Subject: [OPSAWG] Request for presentation slots in IETF103

From: Haoyu song <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:42:43 +0000

Dear OPSAWG chairs,

I'm writing to request two presentation slots to cover the following two drafts:

1.      Newly submitted: In-situ Flow Information Telemetry Framework
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/
   Abstract: In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (iFIT) is a framework for applying
   techniques such as In-situ OAM (iOAM) and Postcard-Based Telemetry
   (PBT) in networks.  It enumerates several key components and
   describes how these components can be assembled to achieve a complete
   working solution for user traffic telemetry in carrier networks.

2.      New version: Network Telemetry Framework
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ntf/

We'll address the comments and suggestions from reviewers and presentation we made
in this latest version.

Thank you very much for considerations!

Best regards,
Haoyu

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:52:48 -0400

On 10/22/18 16:42, Haoyu song wrote:
> Dear OPSAWG chairs,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m writing to request two presentation slots to cover the following two
> drafts:
> 
>  
> 
> We’ll address the comments and suggestions from reviewers and
> presentation we made
> 
> in this latest version.
> 
>  
> 

Thanks for submitting, Haoyu.  However, due to the limit on meeting
timeslots this time, we're already out of time.  Things may always
change if Ops Area has time to give, but in lieu of presentations, I
suggest you discuss some of your planned points on the list.

Joe

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:20:20 -0400

> Thank you very much for considerations!

Good news.  The ADs have granted us some of the Ops Area time.  Given
that, we can add timeslots for your drafts.  How much time will you need
(max 15 minutes per draft)?  Who will present?  Will the presenter be in
BKK?

Remember, we're looking for presentations that focus on open issues and
questions for the WG.  Do not walk through the draft.  Pre-seed the WG
with questions so that people can come prepared to contribute.

Specifically with NTF, there has been some comments on list of late
(which is good), but there was general concern in 102 that this work may
not be relevant to the IETF.  I would appreciate you addressing the
relevance question.

Thanks.

Joe

---

From: Haoyu song <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:35:54 +0000

Thanks Joe. 10 to 15 minutes each will be enough. I'll be the presenter.

As for the NTF draft, I don't recall there was general concern in 102 that this work may not be relevant to the IETF. If anybody think so, please be specific why. We have talked about the motivation in the draft and wish we can provide something useful to IETF, so we are open to hear any comments and opinions. Thanks!

Haoyu 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Clarke [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 2:20 PM
To: Haoyu song <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Request for presentation slots in IETF103

On 10/22/18 16:42, Haoyu song wrote:
> Dear OPSAWG chairs,
> 
>  
> 
> I'm writing to request two presentation slots to cover the following 
> two
> drafts:
> 
>  
> 

Good news.  The ADs have granted us some of the Ops Area time.  Given that, we can add timeslots for your drafts.  How much time will you need (max 15 minutes per draft)?  Who will present?  Will the presenter be in BKK?

Remember, we're looking for presentations that focus on open issues and questions for the WG.  Do not walk through the draft.  Pre-seed the WG with questions so that people can come prepared to contribute.

Specifically with NTF, there has been some comments on list of late (which is good), but there was general concern in 102 that this work may not be relevant to the IETF.  I would appreciate you addressing the relevance question.

Thanks.

Joe

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:29:27 -0400

> As for the NTF draft, I don't recall there was general concern in 102 that this work may not be relevant to the IETF. If anybody think so, please be specific why. We have talked about the motivatio…

I went back in the minutes as I may have been mixing some work.  What I
remember from my earlier reads is that the work focused more on a
catalog of existing OSS projects.  I was unsure what the ask of the IETF
was in terms of what additional/new work needed to be done.

Others commented that a detailed comparison and evaluation is required
in order to determine what the right approach/recommendation should be.

That said, I have not had a chance to read the latest text.  I'll go
through it and offer more current comments.

Joe