Re: [payload] Mail regarding draft-ietf-payload-rtp-g718
Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Tue, 14 February 2012 05:27 UTC
Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBF621E805B for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:27:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.48
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRC0+lk89NfI for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC9621E804C for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obbwd15 with SMTP id wd15so9017038obb.31 for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:27:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=RzMopnr9DfQN9cvh+DlczorGrnYyU8KC0L+/em2B9as=; b=vqT05XoWDbEjo89Ih9E8h+C4vswB07EQrsUHYlIkQKnKStPK2HbWHYXrrWt+Fi+DS1 jP9AEue9BvSaJ2oYD3jRr2qdXRm4W1t5wO34GPk2GDL2dRvbIZ7ppjnqApQv/yQpAo2H 2l+VipvYGisINFTdi0GfCZaYAB+tdIgnAPYcI=
Received: by 10.182.222.102 with SMTP id ql6mr14466209obc.2.1329197232172; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-124-120-58-89.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.120.58.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z3sm7925442obx.5.2012.02.13.21.27.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F39F0A8.2000400@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:27:04 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
References: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE99403C3CC@xmb-rcd-x01-p.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE99403C3CC@xmb-rcd-x01-p.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040103080909090501020402"
Cc: "draft-ietf-payload-rtp-g718@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-payload-rtp-g718@tools.ietf.org>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>, "payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [payload] Mail regarding draft-ietf-payload-rtp-g718
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:13 -0000
On 2/14/2012 3:25 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: > Authors, > > We need to update the milestones for the payload wg. The current milestone is march 2011, which we passed way over. What is the status of this draft and when do you expect to make it final? The status is that I am waiting for a decision from the Chairs as to whether or not to include G718B in this document or not. If so, I will need somebody to supply text (or at least a copy of the G718B spec) -- see attachment. As far as I'm concerned, the draft (constrained to its original scope) has been ready for WGLC for at least a year. > > Thanks. > -acbegen
--- Begin Message ---On 7/6/2011 10:17 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: >> On 7/6/2011 6:27 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: >>> Authors, >>> >>> Where are we with this draft? Are there any outstanding issues or are we getting close to a point to ask for a WG review >> and last call? >> >> I was under the impression that this was in an indefinite holding >> pattern waiting from some progress on the part of ISO. The attached >> message was the last activity AFAIK; I don't believe that there was any >> response. > > Who would know the story on the ISO side? I have no idea; I've never been involved w/ISO, nor do I have access to their working documents. > > BTW, I got a bounce from ari.lakaniemi@nokia.com ... Yes. This would seem not to bode well for participation from Ari.--- End Message ---