[rtgwg]Re: Side Meeting on Large Language Models for Networking at IETF [Nov 5, 15:00-16:30]

Hi Mingzhe, How we can access the slides? Thanks Hesham On Mon, Nov 4, 2024, 12:18 PM Mingzhe Xing wrote: > > > Hi All, > > We will host a side meeting to discuss the application of large language > models (LLMs) in network tasks. > > Meeting Time: Tuesday, Nov 5, 15:00-16:30 (Dublin, Ireland ti

[rtgwg] Clarifying my position on the TI-LFA draft

Hi all, I would like to clarify the position (in the case it was misunderstood or misinterpreted) on usage of the post-convergence oath in the TI-LFA draft that I have presented during the WG session today. I full

[rtgwg] Large-scale Satellite IP Network side meeting

Hi, There will be the Large-scale Satellite IP Network side meeting, welcome to join and share your opinions. Meeting Time: Tursday 7 November 17:00 �C 18:30 (GMT+0) Location: Wicklow Meeting Room 4 Remote Participation: https://ietf.webex.com/meet/ietfsidemeeting1 Materials: https://github.co

[rtgwg]AIDC side meeting

Hi all, We're going to have an AIDC side meeting on Thursday 15:00-17:00 Dublin time at Wicklow Hall 2A. Here is the exciting meeting agenda: AIDC@IETF121 Agenda Time: 15:00 - 17:00 Thursday, October 7, 2024 Location: Wicklow Hall 2A Chairs: Jeff Tantsura (jefftant.i...@gmail.com) Yingzhen Qu (

Re: RTGWG Charter Update

Hi Yingzhen, If we need to define extensions to routing protocols to support green networking, integrated NTN and terrestrial networks, inter-DC distributed AI training, do we need to start incubation project? In the past such extensions are standardized using the current process without recharteri

Side meeting on "Inter-DC & Edge AI traffic handling" on Thursday 7th from 1:30pm to 3pm in Wicklow Hall 2A

Dear all, We are organizing a side meeting on "Inter-DC & Edge AI traffic handling" on Thursday 7th from 1:30pm to 3pm in Wicklow Hall 2A. This side meeting at IETF121 will continue the dialogue initiated during IETF 120. The growth in terms of number of parameters of LLM models as well as the n

[rtgwg] Re: Clarifying my position on the TI-LFA draft

Ahmed, Please go ahead and make that change. - "key" is an unecessary wording for IETF documents. - No one reading this spec needs "key" in this sentence to get the point. /pfr > De: "Ahmed Bashandy" > À: "Alexander Vainshtein" , "rtgwg" > > Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa a

[rtgwg] Re: Charter updates

Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. Please see my answers below inline. Thanks, Yingzhen On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 3:47 PM Adrian Farrel wrote: > [Sorry for breaking the threading, but I lost the original email] > > > > Hi chairs, > > > > Thanks for circulating the charter update proposal. > > >

[rtgwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Charter updates

Hi Sasha, Thanks for the feedback. I hope my response to Adrian's email answers your questions as well, please let me know if I didn't or there are.other questions. Thanks, Yingzhen On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 10:59 PM Alexander Vainshtein < alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: > Adrian hi! > > Lot

[rtgwg] Re: Clarifying my position on the TI-LFA draft

This is what I suggested during the presentation yesterday: to replace the word "key" in the abstract If that small edit would clear the confusion, I will go ahead and do it Thanks Ahmed On 11/5/24 7:52 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: Hi all, I would like to clarify the position (in th

[rtgwg] Re: Charter updates

Hi Hesham, It depends on the consensus of the problem scope. If the solution turns out to be an extension to an existing WG, it will be sent to the WG of that protocol. If from the problem statement we can see the topic is too big for any existing WG to pick up, we'd suggest the creation of a new

[rtgwg] Re: Charter updates

Hi Yingzhen, In the new text you say: "Incubating new routing-related technologies by developing and discussing problem statements and requirements documents, prior to determining whether there is consensus or not for the creation of a new working group. Initial topics include, but are not limited

[rtgwg] Re: Charter updates

Thanks Yingzhen. Hesham On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, 4:42 PM Yingzhen Qu wrote: > Hi Hesham, > > It depends on the consensus of the problem scope. If the solution turns > out to be an extension to an existing WG, it will be sent to the WG of that > protocol. If from the problem statement we can see the

[rtgwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying my position on the TI-LFA draft

Ahmed, I think that the Abstract (of any IETF document, the draft in question included) and the body of the same IETF document should be consistent. This is why copying (part of) the Introduction section of the document as its Abstract is so popular: it saves the effort for the authors/Editors a