Re: [Srcomp] Procedural Questions
Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Wed, 24 March 2021 07:24 UTC
Return-Path: <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2BF3A25D5 for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 s4-rzhYKKMjE for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176D33A25D4 for <srcomp@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.5]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1605ae906900-4d49d; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:23:51 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1605ae906900-4d49d
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc (unknown[10.2.50.166]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee3605ae906cc8-08190; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:23:51 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee3605ae906cc8-08190
From: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
To: 'Ron Bonica' <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, 'srcomp' <srcomp@ietf.org>
References: <BL0PR05MB53163BACEFD5C49C2DA60CD0AE649@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB53163BACEFD5C49C2DA60CD0AE649@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:23:50 +0800
Message-ID: <090a01d7207e$a3957c50$eac074f0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_090B_01D720C1.B1B8BC50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdcgLR6yZjdLsM0xRHCfdpybGTXZPwAUOmQw
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/srcomp/Ta8HSc0rvCp2LU8B8EfI4gWNvIQ>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Procedural Questions
X-BeenThere: srcomp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <srcomp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/srcomp/>
List-Post: <mailto:srcomp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:24:08 -0000
Hi Ron, Thanks for your good suggestions. We can take some time today to discuss the two points in DT meeting. B.R. Weiqiang Cheng 发件人: Srcomp [mailto:srcomp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Ron Bonica 发送时间: 2021年3月24日 05:44 收件人: srcomp 主题: [Srcomp] Procedural Questions Weiqiang, Sometime in the near future, could you announce an order in which Sections of the analysis document will be addressed? Also, could we establish a point of etiquette that the proponent of a compression mechanism be allowed to prepare text for that mechanism. While this text may be challenged and negotiated by the group, allowing an opponent of the compression mechanism prepare the initial text leads to unnecessary contentiousness. Ron Juniper Business Use Only
- [Srcomp] Procedural Questions Ron Bonica
- Re: [Srcomp] Procedural Questions Weiqiang Cheng