Re: [MEDIACTRL] Do we need time in Beijing?

"McGlashan, Scott" <> Mon, 27 September 2010 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A403A6BB7 for <>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqx6Zx2WUSuQ for <>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E0A3A6B6E for <>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7033C87F6; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:30:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:30:12 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:30:12 +0000
From: "McGlashan, Scott" <>
To: Eric Burger <>, "" <>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:29:15 +0000
Thread-Topic: [MEDIACTRL] Do we need time in Beijing?
Thread-Index: ActeYUHekniVIWf+S/C1R9UI0TgIdQ==
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Do we need time in Beijing?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:30:12 -0000

Yes Sir!

I'll work to your 2 week deadline for the mixer and ivr packages - they
are in progress, so expect more questions to the mailing list over the
next few days.

I'll not be in Beijing unfortunately, but can attend remotely.


On 26/09/2010 04:19, "Eric Burger" <> wrote:

>Let's put it another way: we are very close to being finished.
>If I was a jerk, I would say, "If the documents are not done in the next
>two weeks, we meet, and whoever shows up gets to be the editor and get
>attribution for the work."
>Of course, I am not a jerk.
>Well, I can be.
>Let's get this done!
>BTW, I will be in Beijing, so no issue for me...
>On Sep 25, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>> [as chair]
>> Do we need a session in Beijing?  The deadline for requesting a session
>>is upon us (Monday).
>> The Datatracker says that we have several finished RFCs, one draft in
>>IESG evaluation (which we've been seeing progress on), two that the IESG
>>thinks need work, and two drafts that "exist".  My sense is that author
>>bandwidth is the limiting resource at the moment.
>> The only one draft has been updated since Maastricht and only two since
>> Will a session in Beijing help move things along?
>> Dale