[MEDIACTRL] Do we need time in Beijing?

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Sat, 25 September 2010 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC093A6A48 for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.461
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CwvIfZ8SzRnR for <mediactrl@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BFA3A69F3 for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,236,1283745600"; d="scan'208";a="239765725"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2010 16:47:03 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,236,1283745600"; d="scan'208";a="519930448"
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2010 16:47:03 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([]) with mapi; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:47:02 -0400
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: "mediactrl@ietf.org" <mediactrl@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:47:03 -0400
Thread-Topic: Do we need time in Beijing?
Thread-Index: AQHLXPLOLfCLmLkVHkCl+n1YpH18sQ==
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FFC79C68@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Do we need time in Beijing?
X-BeenThere: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:mediactrl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:46:30 -0000

[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 Anaheim.

Will a session in Beijing help move things along?