Re: [rmcat] rmcat minutes

[Varun Singh <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'm not opposed to the framework document, infact I'm all for it. I thought
the reason to take off the current document was that the framework document
was not in the milestones.
On 01-Apr-2015 7:54 pm, "Zaheduzzaman Sarker" <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If we are undecided with what to do with framework document then why are
> we having that?
>
> My understanding was that all these three documents are covered by the
> same milestone. The framework document will be used as common understanding
> of different modules for different algorithms.
>
> I believe we are having the framework documents as we believe it will
> useful.
>
> BR
>
> Zahed
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rmcat [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind
> > Sent: den 1 april 2015 18:28
> > To: Varun Singh
> > Cc: Karen E. E. Nielsen; rmcat WG ([e-mail]); Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
> > Subject: Re: [rmcat] rmcat minutes
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > sorry, didn’t read the notes carefully enough to catch this. The answer
> should
> > in fact be ‚no‘. Will correct the minutes. (Actually in the meeting the
> answer
> > was yes, but to the question that all will be submitted as individual…)
> >
> > All three documents will start as individual drafts. The two new
> interaction
> > drafts can then be adopted to address the app-interaction milestone. For
> the
> > framework we will figure out later what to do with it. But we could also
> adopt
> > it (later, if we think it’s useful) without changing the milestones. I
> don’t think
> > we are going to change the milestones in this case because removing or
> > adding (rather than just moving) milestones means to re-charter the wg.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > > Am 01.04.2015 um 08:31 schrieb Varun Singh <[e-mail]>:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> Can the chairs please clarify this part?
> > >>
> > >>> on splitting rmcat-app-interaction
> > >>>    terminate existing, three new:
> > >>>    CC-App interations -> W3C (Varun)
> > >>>    CC-Codec interactions -> RMCAT (Mo)
> > >>>    RMCAT framework
> > >>> Mike Ramallo: Procedural question: this is a WG document, will all
> > >>> three become WG drafts?
> > >>> Karen/Mirja: yes
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I thought we would submit 3 new individual drafts and seek adoption
> > >> of each separately, adding new milestones for each once adopted. Or
> > >> will all
> > >> 3 really inherit WG document status, and immediately add 3 new
> > >> milestones to replace the existing one?
> > >>
> > >
> > > My recollection was that the 2 documents would start as individual and
> > > when adopted would fulfill the single milestone.
> > > I thought we were undecided on the topic of the RMCAT Framework draft.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Mo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 3/31/15, 6:28 PM, Mirja Kühlewind
> > >> <[e-mail]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> find the minutes from the last meeting in etherpad:
> > >>
> > >> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-92-rmcat
> > >>
> > >> Thanks to Brian for this great job as minute taker!!!
> > >>
> > >> As we¹ve been running a little bit over time, there might be some few
> > >> comments missing at the end but I pretty everything important got
> > >> captured before that.
> > >>
> > >> If you¹ve spoken in the meeting, please review the minutes and
> > >> potentially apply changes!
> > >>
> > >> I will upload the minutes next week.
> > >>
> > >> Mirja
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.callstats.io
>
>