IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 25 July 2013 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rai@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052D921F8528 for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 I9dzFW8xXjDr for <rai@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AD021F842A for <rai@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=643; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374777769; x=1375987369; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ae6DIg79SvpUWuxlZ6ser+Wqs6jxllZCAmh3fWhpBG8=; b=iNGeHJajeBUNTA1ujIhABUzW8kCzBJYAacljI8dsvQCOrGmhL9MUfUtW ILyH4nTBn1P0E7ACs0wFydX5iMM1U8m/Y594rgnahEvdUUZ1bCNXEFPd3 ZkUys51bJVwjCqsFEUTprlyxDD3awwl6esCln+x89DwZc1qVl6klKy1Lh k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAM1w8VGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBYJFuxyBFxZ0giQBAQEDATo/BQsCAQgiFBAyJQIEDgUIiAIGug+PSgIxB4MSbgOpLIMUgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,744,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="239314352"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2013 18:42:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6PIgmqp006184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:42:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.29]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:42:48 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Thread-Topic: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
Thread-Index: AQHOiWbCHxjYYUg3xkWUDFd757qiJw==
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:42:47 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113611788@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <51C157BA.70509@ericsson.com> <51E7D81A.5000008@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <51E7D81A.5000008@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C1A1550147531046891C80180EAA5237@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rai@ietf.org" <rai@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" <rai.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai>
List-Post: <mailto:rai@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai>, <mailto:rai-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:42:55 -0000

On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> To my mind, SCTP-in-SDP could have been a working group. Once there are two working implementations that can successfully negotiate SCTP, its work is done and can shut down.
> 
> Trickle ICE could have been another. The day we have 2 implementations interworking - done.

These are interesting examples to consider.

I think the existing dispatch process would have easily allowed creation of mini WG for either of these topics. I seem to recall that at the time the authors of the drafts were in favor of going to existing WGs.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email