Re: [sip-clf] conflict SIPCLF -> OPSAREA

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6A03A68D3 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:56:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tcd9d4-JPx4C for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1C03A68C8 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:56:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-62f8.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-62f8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.98.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA80uR3F027065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:56:29 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF1C548F-4541-4289-8039-C3C504FA792C@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:56:26 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3727A588-4B3D-42DD-BB6F-9D4A74EF0E12@nostrum.com>
References: <4CD3E838.60705@cisco.com> <AF1C548F-4541-4289-8039-C3C504FA792C@cisco.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 130.129.98.248 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: sipclf-ads@tools.ietf.org, sipclf-chairs@tools.ietf.org, SIP-CLF Mailing List <sip-clf@ietf.org>, Saverio Niccolini <Saverio.Niccolini@nw.neclab.eu>, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] conflict SIPCLF -> OPSAREA
X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list <sip-clf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf>, <mailto:sip-clf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-clf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-clf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf>, <mailto:sip-clf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:56:14 -0000

At this point, no.

It's ironic that this unfortunate conflict was caused by a late swap.

Peter is planning to get together with Benoit (and anyone else that's interested) to go over his implementation experience one-on-one.

RjS

On Nov 7, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 
> Is there any chance we might be able to resolve this conflict by moving SIP-CLF. I realize how late it is to move things but it's been done before and this group was so OPs related it almost got created in the OPs area. Not having the Ops people attend, particular Benoit, seem like a serious impediment to making progress given the agenda. 
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 5:19 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I realized that there is a conflict in the agenda: SIPCLF -> OPSAREA, since SIPCLF was "Moved from Friday morning session I 0900-1130"
>> I have to chose OPSAREA.
>> For future meetings, we should avoid the conflict with some OPS related activities ... most importantly if IPFIX is selected as the protocol.
>> 
>> Regards, Benoit.
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-clf mailing list
>> sip-clf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf