Re: [Taps] Should TAPS meet during IETF-108?

Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> Tue, 26 May 2020 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tpauly@apple.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 463203A085D; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:52:11 -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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.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 8sSRgS6K3eY1; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [17.151.62.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03193A0A3B; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04QKmH8L041036; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:57 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=Bs6QysOMXYs/LCpwOZtd+s6JN5vVpXWXlgjDT34OIUM=; b=gIHcS8vAFVFQKfjahuQDUXop9zTCeyVmOu//n8E2olTmzkHVIp+/gxY6TMJzeNrkpnoO KxCzMcr+D+VOnEMSO4BfLxEKR9+uYiwTCxd8CKp+NwZX3d6gPiWc6hAL9jYf+cJhVayD O+WfEHduG5gcDdR90Lu3r63Lm0u+CUSStiO5LGFq/vrrwxgWpRnUkHd20b/OC02AmL6p PUqvLC7yQxfUUrOMI12NygHFAl+b+zbb7jAEm1QwmlGNBXIj6ZZsA0d0J81aJKXlBCA3 FbvPlWFf3HGmMHZUoaolzZDq6zxtIxn8jXrdmPBuFqpWZZ3HEjUrwMNdrllMhXe9lP7F tg==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.152]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com with ESMTP id 3172ryyyuw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:57 -0700
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.15]) by rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPS id <0QAY00IGTHYLIWG0@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.rno.apple.com by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) id <0QAY00A00HLF5S00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 680af95aad303fec1ba3b7b39bbdd6d4
X-Va-E-CD: 6ddc33f1e53c01a6e305d3342d90a79d
X-Va-R-CD: 1ccf065659135545b69024b3ccfd189c
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 5da9498d-28cf-4863-a797-f207f4349fcb
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 680af95aad303fec1ba3b7b39bbdd6d4
X-V-E-CD: 6ddc33f1e53c01a6e305d3342d90a79d
X-V-R-CD: 1ccf065659135545b69024b3ccfd189c
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: be802f85-7d05-4a31-b82b-b94a60914970
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-05-26_02:2020-05-26, 2020-05-26 signatures=0
Received: from [17.232.207.83] (unknown [17.232.207.83]) by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPSA id <0QAY00Z19HYK4100@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp02.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Message-id: <72D5AAA6-CD23-490C-9DB2-ED38674533CC@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBC58D62-E3EF-45E9-B495-8A347BA6E64C"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.7.2.3\))
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:56 -0700
In-reply-to: <9D0C0117-DC7B-4547-961B-3FCBA3F3051D@ericsson.com>
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, "taps-ads@ietf.org" <taps-ads@ietf.org>
To: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <5A720526-CFF7-4F88-9BC3-2132A4412DFE@gmail.com> <CAM4esxQ019r9rGppsDxPwi-2RSKFM1cPBYxocXZKAy-ZAuTb8Q@mail.gmail.com> <9D0C0117-DC7B-4547-961B-3FCBA3F3051D@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.7.2.3)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-05-26_02:2020-05-26, 2020-05-26 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/FjcH1ne0HA3UoQpwAOsCXJXMbOg>
Subject: Re: [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 20:52:12 -0000

I agree that TAPS in particular is working well in the interim meetings, and we’ll likely be more productive in that forum, when we’re not competing for author’s time in other groups.

If we had proposals for new work and presentations from folks not already in the interims, it’d make sense to meet that week, but otherwise we can do without it.

Best,
Tommy 

> On May 26, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin, hi all,
>  
> I agree that your points listed below are usually good reasons for a wg meeting. In case of taps I think we reached a working mode where we really try to fix github issue and get the docs ready for wglc. This might be less interesting for “tourists” and we probably won’t really have proceedings. So I’m happy to move this out of the IETF week. Ideally we would be mostly done even before the 108 meeting 😊 However, not sure where we are with the implementation draft…?
>  
> Mirja
>  
>  
>  
> From: Taps <taps-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 26. May 2020 at 18:08
> To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
> Cc: "taps-ads@ietf.org" <taps-ads@ietf.org>rg>, taps WG <taps@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taps] Should TAPS meet during IETF-108?
>  
>> Frankly, I can’t think of a good reason to do so. 
>  
> Although I don't have a strong opinion on this question, the reasons to participate in 108 proper are:
> - full support for meetecho, archiving, proceedings, etc
> - more participation from "tourists" who have already adjusted their schedules for that week
> - scheduling that ensures the remote meeting time moves around during the year, meaning it's not always scheduled for the convenience of the usual suspects.
>  
> If that's not compelling for the WG, that's fine with me.
> Martin
>  
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:17 AM Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com <mailto:aaron.falk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps