IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Fri, 23 March 2012 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD08F21F844B for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 cIMTNo6lal3H for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1341]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4807621F849B for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1SB12B-0004mh-Mx; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:43:48 +0100
Received: from timbru.vpn.ripe.net ([193.0.21.62]) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1SB12B-0003ne-HW; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:43:47 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1--146174442"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6C91C2@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:43:47 +0100
Message-Id: <BCF0371A-098A-4A86-A51E-93B4043EF3F7@ripe.net>
References: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6C91C2@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
To: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a071959a1fa945b50c0a25ad0b08ba1077031
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:43:55 -0000

Hi,

On 22 Mar 2012, at 17:07, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
> .....
> Interim meetings are not supported by the secretariat, so for face-face meetings we have to rely on volunteer organizations or hosts.  That will mean that some meetings will have no hosts (virtual) or will have hosts but be space bounded (limited face-face).  Remote participation will always be available.
> 
> Comments?


I do see the point of keeping and improving momentum.

Is the biggest problem though that 1 slot providing 2 hours f2f during a regular IETF is not enough, or is the 4 month interval between f2f meetings the major issue?

I share people's concerns about additional travel, so I would prefer to go for 2 or even 3 slots at the upcoming IETFs instead. I don't know what IETF policy is on this, but it's quite clear that there is enough on the agenda that needs f2f.


Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email