Re: [Rai-discuss] RAI scheduling

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 12 May 2008 18:09 UTC

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4-dwing_2008_a (2008-01-01) on dwing-wxp01.cisco.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Bayes-Spam: 0.999-+--H*r:sk:sj-inbo, 0.997-+--H*r:HELO, 0.995-6--HX-Virus-Status:Clean, 0.993-4--HReceived-SPF:pass, 0.987-2--H*r:8.14.1
X-Spam-Status: No, Score=1.6/5.0, AWL=-0.905,BAYES_50=0.001, LOCAL_ALWAYSTRUE=0.01,MISSING_SUBJECT=2.476,NO_RECEIVED=-0.001, shortcircuit=no, autolearn=no
X-Spam-RBL:
X-Spam-UnTrusted: [ ip=72.232.15.10 rdns=shaman.nostrum.com helo=nostrum.com by=sj-inbound-b.cisco.com ident= envfrom= intl=0 id= auth= msa=0 ] [ ip=75.53.54.121 rdns=vicuna-alt.estacado.net helo=sparc108.santera.com by=nostrum.com ident= envfrom=adam@nostrum.com intl=0 id=m4CI98Tb078818 auth=Sendmail msa=0 ]
X-Spam-Bayes-Summ: summary=Tokens: new, 69; hammy, 42; neutral, 79; spammy, 24.
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.144]) by xmb-sjc-22a.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 May 2008 11:09:34 -0700
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 May 2008 11:09:34 -0700
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2008 11:09:22 -0700
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4CI9M1a012402 for <dwing@exch.cisco.com>; Mon, 12 May 2008 11:09:22 -0700
Received: from sj-inbound-b.cisco.com (sj-inbound-b.cisco.com [128.107.234.205]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4CI8q7x028665 for <dwing@cisco.com>; Mon, 12 May 2008 18:09:22 GMT
X-from-outside-Cisco: 72.232.15.10
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAJokKEhI6A8K/2dsb2JhbACBU6pW
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,474,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="30778928"
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (HELO nostrum.com) ([72.232.15.10]) by sj-inbound-b.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 May 2008 11:09:21 -0700
Received: from sparc108.santera.com (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m4CI98Tb078818 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 May 2008 13:09:09 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <482887C5.5070300@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:09:09 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
CC: rai-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rai-discuss] RAI scheduling
References: <046501c8b459$2f223880$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <046501c8b459$2f223880$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93/6802/Wed Apr 16 12:35:44 2008 on shaman.nostrum.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=adam@nostrum.com; dkim=neutral
Return-Path: adam@nostrum.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2008 18:09:34.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[550FC6A0:01C8B45B]

On 5/12/08 12:54 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
> In order to reduce RAI's footprint on IETF scheduling, have we considered
> purposefully double-book RAI sessions which are more-or-less standalone?  For
> example, SPEECSC, XCON, or MEDIACTRL could be scheduled at the same time as
> SIP or MMUSIC with little harmful effect.  Am I wrong?
>   

Scheduling XCON against SIP would mean an XCON session with maybe one 
chair -- but probably zero -- and absolutely no participants. XCON 
against MMUSIC would yield similar, if slightly less dire, results.

/a