[SAFE] Re: SAFE BoF in Vancouver

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 02:00 UTC

Return-path: <safe-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuetV-0004eL-DU; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:00:49 -0500
Received: from safe by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IudcC-0000MV-7V for safe-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:38:52 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IudcB-0000MM-Sj; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:38:51 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IudcB-0003zy-HC; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:38:51 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2007 16:38:50 -0800
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAL0coon017238; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:38:50 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAL0cYHG013015; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:38:50 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:38:45 -0800
Received: from jmpolk-wxp.cisco.com ([10.21.148.187]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:38:45 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:38:44 -0600
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <p06240608c36923d4b983@[67.169.50.136]>
References: <351D0D85-DE60-4F47-8D16-E61B6799EC79@csperkins.org> <p06240603c368e070ee0c@[67.169.50.136]> <A5FE35CC-D84A-4F27-A9CC-BCF458F83CAB@csperkins.org> <p06240608c36923d4b983@[67.169.50.136]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-211wcdZ06YO0000130f@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2007 00:38:45.0169 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF6FA210:01C82BD6]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1531; t=1195605530; x=1196469530; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20SAFE=20BoF=20in=20Vancouver |Sender:=20; bh=mvLrP0bo2WLSX5+sT38m5IEUNj8NEhXGhi9Zr4IC+u8=; b=h9dlPyKxDCNPxi+m4IYinM2Ak19gyVH8dSeCM5XtzGeMf9/8OiJ23oFxOPrJ2lXomnCPwLCE yaxM955lvnFKh8/oMw+Xr93jZp2TSTd36oh2tyLBj8rAQgUrLG2+9xalo2YhNqYV7nbwfWK03U 2766rZTcPrrKVNTAOSiI7EsAk=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:00:48 -0500
Cc: safe@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [SAFE] Re: SAFE BoF in Vancouver
X-BeenThere: safe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Self-Address Fixing Evolution <safe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe>, <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/safe>
List-Post: <mailto:safe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe>, <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: safe-bounces@ietf.org

At 05:54 PM 11/20/2007, Ted Hardie wrote:
>At 11:38 PM +0000 11/20/07, Colin Perkins wrote:
> >On 20 Nov 2007, at 19:07, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >>At 1:59 PM +0000 11/16/07, Colin Perkins wrote:
> >>>The following BoF has been proposed for the Vancouver IETF. 
> There is a mailing list <safe@ietf.org> for discussion.
> >>
> >>This seems to be scheduled against both the Applications area 
> open meeting and a RAI group focused on media servers.  Both groups 
> would have an interest in following this work and discussing where 
> future IETF work in this area will happen. Is there still a 
> possibility of adjusting this timing?  I understand, of course, 
> that not every conflict can be resolved, but it would be useful to 
> know whether this is still something that might be addressed.
> >
> >We're aware of the conflicts, but this is the least bad scheduling 
> we've been able to find. If you have suggestions for a better slot, 
> we're open to ideas.
>
>Friday morning?  There are no APPs or TSV groups meeting then, and 
>the RAI group is
>GeoPRIV, which wouldn't have as high an overlap as most other RAI groups.

But Ted, you're going to Geopriv?  So how does this work?


>Again, I know we can resolve every conflict, and I appreciate your 
>considering changes.
>                                 regards,
>                                         Ted
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
SAFE mailing list
SAFE@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe