Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG

"Osterweil, Eric" <eosterweil@verisign.com> Tue, 04 February 2014 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <eosterweil@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169F31A00F9 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 08:50:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E5Lh8NkDMy36 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 08:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og109.obsmtp.com (exprod6og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7101A01D2 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 08:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob109.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUvEaOyYbC2dhdF/ZsFXx1tE0B1FYMtU0@postini.com; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:50:05 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id s14Go2no001614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:50:02 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:50:01 -0500
From: "Osterweil, Eric" <eosterweil@verisign.com>
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG
Thread-Index: AQHO4UUNo0vElbAGd0SVhro/WnUq0Jql9KwAgAApVoCAAAW6gA==
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:50:01 +0000
Message-ID: <6E499501-18BB-49CE-ABC9-7820DE5F67B7@verisign.com>
References: <5B131180-FA93-4A05-B3BE-3A23767EBD9D@netapp.com> <5BB6C63B-4C53-4552-991D-AB50B2E66247@netapp.com> <CAPv4CP8bQSjEB5JJC1Q1go4b20878hvcsyap-HSquJV5KZAfNw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP8bQSjEB5JJC1Q1go4b20878hvcsyap-HSquJV5KZAfNw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2D36C73A321EC64697D38108D179D1C6@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rrg@irtf.org" <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:50:11 -0000

On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>;
 wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com>; wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> so it looks like the effort to reboot the RRG has fizzled out, since we didn't manage to get critical mass for a meeting in London. That's not a good sign.
>> 
>> I'm happy to have a conversation on the list or face-to-face in London about the future of the group; at the moment, my inclination is to close it in the near future, since we seem to have run out of steam.
> 
> Getting together informally in London would be great, because by
> sitting down together, even if it's only a few of us, we may generate
> enough energy and focus to do something in IRTF. I believe RRG needs
> to be complementary with the IETF, and what that would mean to RRG
> isn't obvious right now.  So I would be delighted if you could set up
> a face-to-face.

+1

> Please don't kill the mailing list. It doesn't hurt anyone, and having
> it around will make it easier to have ad hoc discussions. You can
> declare the RRG suspended (it is :-)) but I don't see the point in
> expunging it.

+1

Eric