Re: [DNA-BOF] Draft BoF agenda.

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

Hi Erik,

Erik Nordmark wrote:
>>Introduction/Agenda Bash: 5 Min
>>Problem Description/Existing work: 40 Min
>>Scope and Issues: 40 Min
>>Interest and Focus: 15 Min
> 
> 
> It might be quite useful to try to put together a first cut at
> a charter for a WG before Vienna. That way the discussions during the
> BoF can be used to tweak the charter.
> And if the charter contains a list of proposed documents that a WG
> would deliver it would make things more concrete.

I was not sure how to go about this, considering that
we haven't determined which items are in scope or not.

There was a very rough outline which I wrote before
finalizing the agenda.  I'll send an update to this and
see what the group thinks.

> I wonder if the BoF is likely to get into terminology ratholes.
> It definitely makes sense running a rat hole detector on this during
> the meeting. The term link, e.g. as defined in RFC 2460, is
> still correct but perhaps not very useful in distnguishing between
> different instances of the same type of link. So perhaps "link instance"
> is the missing term, which one or more subnet prefixes being assigned
> to each link instance.

Thanks for that pointer.   How about we start getting a
terminology list together from the ML archive?

I could put this on the web page.

Of course, this would not be an official reading document
before the meeting (does it count if we get it up two
weeks before the session, rather than the meeting??),
but could help to avoid confusion at least amongst list readers.

One of the first requirements of a charter/work plan would be a
terminology document.

Greg