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

Kyle Rose <> Tue, 26 May 2020 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737923A0F9F for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRxrKFjL3kVZ for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::936]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07BE53A0FAB for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f9so7306736uaq.2 for <>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5wWRrEw4j351S4BIcvvQvrf5t8ZwzD3+qjZkHBweLx4=; b=PRuQeAg0Y9GqcdWt/TMRMiXBjrQV2NalAj+4E/mwiDi5zDmMSHhhZsjOZiw4HSi+v6 7iphYigZIwp0cHJB0Au6lsV9jlgPusJ0QGCGZvGnF3D5Jsb65I2VFQe7iZcZw1eGRQvF IS+X1gsYxNqx9zJRLhCcEj9zq1JCMF2v+KjU8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5wWRrEw4j351S4BIcvvQvrf5t8ZwzD3+qjZkHBweLx4=; b=opAGx4GILLX1EUv/4clht21ym4xO6SooJxypCFZURkYtSsQ+csSfWc8RMouf/ePUnW Ongm0r5c5e6m+V+61R596yNOFINrQm7iruSWpI/3a9xStgzGE+mFTEGz0eALm+3SMvKi m8i0b948ziHWuY4eAhl98cERw+TGz7ekdbm0lstVXvWaK2qDMFvkTd4CeXWXYkA1jjaV vtcrC08KrqZrd20BmcrBuDrFNXZizCAL2K1U3h8LJuSC+dyrYHjJKkVy28yNsoKZgqDu QndSkVyux/B6j8KGN7ow2B/quN3RXP+Z1CdeQ7XM67HA+RGe2EQRGLp7q0Z5tsacBjCy 6yrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530dFjCUYdcQXvUuSvLqLUCrEaTxjzri0WoQiKsn4aXsLRT7wrr/ SHiN3LoAn+xwcbkUoyji4gK4+xZk7UcU00pliZOKaQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjX6vozFi3UCERFMDbla/iLPAX3TDSfjRVpNk8XcbN/9PRLeUpK94E4a3qXzF6zxECfcnJwlUWjIIm4t68vy8=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6855:: with SMTP id a21mr1099409uas.30.1590504189872; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kyle Rose <>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:42:58 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Aaron Falk <>
Cc: taps WG <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040637b05a68e1d69"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Should TAPS meet during IETF-108?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 14:43:25 -0000

Agreed 100%. Leslie and I are also taking the approach for MOPS of an
interim in lieu of trying to cram our remote meeting into the official
single week for no good reason I can tell. We can schedule the meeting for
when it's convenient for participants, and probably also make it easier for
new folks with jobs to clear their schedules for an hour here or there
rather than an entire week at once without the travel excuse.

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:17 AM Aaron Falk <> 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