Re: [DNA-BOF] Draft BoF agenda.

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi JinHyeock,

JinHyeock Choi wrote:
> Dear Greg
> 
> Thanks for nice work.
> 
> Kindly find my on line comments.
> 
> 
>>DNA BoF Draft Agenda (Approx 85 Minutes) 
>>
>>Introduction/Agenda Bash (5 Min - Chairs): 
>>
>>Problem Description/Existing work (25 Min): 
[cut]
>>Issues (40 Min): 
[cut]
>>Interest and Focus (15 Min - Chairs): 
[cut]
> 
> It looks reasonable but I have a suggestion on time allotment. 
> 
> IMHO, we'd better pay more attention on 'Problem Description/ Existing work' 
> than 'Issues'.   
> 
> 'Problem Description/ Existing work' is about "The problems we encountered 
> in mobileip, Zeroconf or DHC, hence the tasks  DNA solution is supposed to 
> accomplish."

> Among 'Issues', 1, 3, 4 are basically about WG scope, 'Will we include these 
> items in WG charter or not?'. 

I will modify the title of this section to "Scope of Work/Issues"

> So it seems reasonable to me to assign more time on 'Problem Description/ 
> Existing work' than 'Issues'.

Actually, we can look at this in more depth, but my guess
was ~5 mins presentation + 5 Minutes discussion (avg) for
each of the issues.

For the Problem Description, I think that it may be more constructive
to have comments at the end of the section, rather than after
each presentation.

I allocated 5 minutes for each presentation and 10 minutes for
discussion of previous work.

I think that there aren't any 90 minute slots at this IETF,
so we could probably give 5 more minutes to each of the
past work descriptions.

I'd prefer that people didn't work hard to fill the time,
Since any time which is available after people have finished
the Previous Work presentations will be available for
discussion.

Here is the amended breakdown:

Introduction/Agenda Bash: 5 Min
Problem Description/Existing work: 40 Min
Scope and Issues: 40 Min
Interest and Focus: 15 Min

I think that if there is one section where
discussion is heated, it may be possible to
truncate the discussion to get the other part
of the presentation done.

This (hot) discussion could then go on after
Scope and Issues.
How does this sound?

Greg