Re: [netext] Netext WG will not meet at IETF86
"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Fri, 18 January 2013 02:03 UTC
Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9BD21F8AE0 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:03:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L4mn4GXTDFPF for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A07321F890D for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:03:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7460; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1358474618; x=1359684218; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=ooxkODWAla4h3HKlibtPRqgOQ99nFEEPkTCXbwZxTv4=; b=Csg4Iqhg1VRMigGxfKJJlJuPo5rcWZDmRmHCZ++sPmi/Nu0usAw26S/Z cPjpmbMv/urEykZA+ywi+YXmtuF4e4L1Fh1HQzhXRMBOAg9mvfgEY8T8n WgghcMlEPqWbhBw1FrCfol5l/VMLEz/yauLPnBbGCZdQkYJbud/FawIrT 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFANis+FCtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABFgki7bxZzgh4BAQEEeRIBCA4DAwECCx0oERQJCAIEAQ0FCId/Aw+yaA2IWYwJeINXYQOUNo0NhRKCdYFvNQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,488,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="161187625"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2013 02:03:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0I23bV5029333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:03:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.233]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:03:37 -0600
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Netext WG will not meet at IETF86
Thread-Index: AQHN9SAGaiwVVRMTxUOoE8psGtQYrw==
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:03:36 +0000
Message-ID: <24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8100F85D7@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA5F1T0tkw_8VbGfGORbgXETihxTDiQq5sr_Fpzd9JFSvJ1g5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.21.126.17]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8100F85D7xmbalnx03ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Netext WG will not meet at IETF86
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:03:39 -0000
Raj - Its fine this time. But, taking WG inputs before such conclusion will help every one in their work planning. We had similar discussion in other WG's before and the general view was to let the WG participate in such decisions and not surprise the group. Also, we miss the meeting, does not mean we make more progress; out of sight ..out of mind. May be this is also a hint we may not need that many WG's ..DMM, Multimob, Netext, just a single group, when the work load is less. Any case, Happy New Year !!! Sri From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com<mailto:bpatil1@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:16 AM To: "netext@ietf.org<mailto:netext@ietf.org>" <netext@ietf.org<mailto:netext@ietf.org>> Cc: "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>> Subject: [netext] Netext WG will not meet at IETF86 Hello folks, We have been thinking about the WG status and overall progress. Overall, we are making good progress on several documents. However, we think the WG needs to make progress not just at/around meetings. And we do not believe there are any critical issues that need face-face meeting at the upcoming IETF(86). We need people to help review the I-Ds and improve the quality of many of the documents. With this in mind, we have decided that we will not meet at Orlando IETF. Instead, we would like the WG to discuss and resolve any issues over the email alias. We would also like help with I-D reviews. We have discussed this with our AD Brian Haberman (Cc'd) and he is fully supportive of this. Thanks. -Chairs.
- [netext] Netext WG will not meet at IETF86 Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Netext WG will not meet at IETF86 Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Netext WG will not meet at IETF86 Behcet Sarikaya