[Taps] Should TAPS meet during IETF-108?

Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> Tue, 26 May 2020 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4963A0F8D; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 IuFGIE5UbXqc; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0BC3A0F8B; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id b27so10672779qka.4; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7jjGBqEwtqXZDxboloyWiJTq9hx87GKHEMNlG1lTTPQ=; b=GsSi3uw7BLSaJaNs/3kywBVEvLhLY/HCierpX8jnhN0DMWD/BmsWyLCKF5Rn7/ykX9 mLEW6nK8brs6yG06IDwP90TsuPFHFT/C43rqHwLLmbPukmjV5uAxzYh0MZXCzwhzqXDm L541bYItkc0RcheHomp/sUoUiV9vfgKY3b77tRn7E8en+qtBKCsF1LQPRFP+PGsQ51gD 6uoGrX0ZvYLls7NoG9UbezHkTuNzZePuiWWig9UxEEhEbqlLkppFsIIu+JcgirSb8JZi vk2z5I2cI/7JHq1c6vCX+WuzPO8D9PzVnh/iMtM8TpqDXJspsRWgLzE1AKCacZy100ys G5nQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7jjGBqEwtqXZDxboloyWiJTq9hx87GKHEMNlG1lTTPQ=; b=dbn+b6XQ+7pG8UMdmMIs2kGX9CDZMLxpkbPxrzs4YLIUE5sB1zwfs4h+iWVY5R/DkP OvU33p5alkUMCkoLLaKVHzQOU9Yz3c1up5EIfsUJ/UJ9CL6aD5Jx5I+YL2OgwxNSwbfU hFvOq4nwIWMlZVTnso6BzDhAKukT9trDGN/ab6Ymf7BzxlpTmm7pgPfMnoISixIVRyUi pCGJwU7Xy8R32NDT+Daxvr0Dk5ev+Q197y6YcfPKPBeUO/UkqEsE2LsZuhS2uZBKXfmD s9htLN77L/XsWXBSbucAn20uzHHCpYEpO+Cby3hKVKHGfpcI3gey2jiMa5UfL9s+gwIE CZMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PofxvV9/RC9TqXHlAluIG9wMwSsP0exyJ1KcOOiKmC56jlISg 3Zj4i6cxJ6c/fJds0flaxp5p1sAFxZ4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2y2GYtpBBGAovMV5cf8K/MQ/ndT7Hh1kstZ0rj5vScc3hpYo/xk43wfpWko/MyUNRGSI6gg==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:b5c3:: with SMTP id e186mr1430372qkf.158.1590502637592; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.40.139] ([2601:18f:702:c870:201c:9860:687c:6bc0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm17110414qkf.9.2020.05.26.07.17.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 May 2020 07:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Aaron Falk" <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
To: "taps WG" <taps@ietf.org>, taps-ads@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:17:15 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <5A720526-CFF7-4F88-9BC3-2132A4412DFE@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_FFC93EB7-D122-462B-8066-CBC977DBDEF7_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/7884Gcs8_UdBp-AtVgzAbjwI30g>
Subject: [Taps] Should TAPS meet during IETF-108?
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 14:17:24 -0000

Dear TAPS working group & ADs,

Scheduling has begun for the online IETF-108 meeting in July.  Should we 
request a meeting slot for IETF week?  Frankly, I can’t think of a 
good reason to do so.  We’ve been making good progress with ~monthly 
Webex sessions and my hope is to continue them.  Trying to schedule a 
meeting during IETF week will only reduce availability of participants.  
Thoughts?

--aaron