[rmcat] confirmation of WG adoption calls

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Mon, 11 March 2013 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5E121F8E06 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ytoGlnD9OSgT for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDAC21F8DD5 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,825,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="29876189"
Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2013 13:04:00 -0700
Received: from vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com (exchsmtp.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.35]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r2BK40MA006951 for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.54]) by vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.35]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:03:59 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: confirmation of WG adoption calls
Thread-Index: AQHOHpORdnYZFalzFEmheSb69M4zjg==
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:03:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F7A8CA2@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7958885C3D195A49BA96C0BC44CF4A18@tahoe.netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rmcat] confirmation of WG adoption calls
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmcat>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:04:01 -0000

Hi,

during the meeting today, I asked for consensus calls to adopt

(1) draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs as a starting point for our cc-requirements work item
(2) draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval as a starting point for our eval-criteria work item

For (1), the room as 20-0 in favor of adoption. I'd call this strong consensus and would as the author to submit the next revision as a WG item. Please speak up if you disagree with this notion.

For (2), the room was more split, with about 10-5 in favor. I'd like to understand the reservations that kept some people from supporting the consensus call. Please send a brief email to the list (or to the chairs personally) and let us know if you have fundamental objections or would simply see the document develop a bit further before being able to support it, or any other concerns you may have.

We don't have any alternative documents targeting our eval-criteria milestone, and I'm thus at the moment leaning to call a weak consensus for adoption. But I want to make sure we understand the concerns first.

Thanks,
Lars

PS: I'm saying "I" a lot in this email, because I haven't had a chance to sync up with Mirja on this yet.