IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 26 May 2020 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@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 D9C013A08C5; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:06:45 -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 lTUwjOPe_8RZ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 DDBD03A0958; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id s18so8643419ioe.2; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TLc6/F5weAUo5Gr80YxcB73jVhZ6oamfYxQbOI5rB5w=; b=dHJ+ojoHHo5qR0Des/n2QkeOQarwb/32840OvCGeLVqHqqpQfsFs1zF+YcM0W3cEcc dpnBmnhMZezlwuJdsg6/S0S4/iNj7wbEJDnlEsr5x5ty2QT0B/gyDn1WWfqoF1nqHYDb rhqNNcphORf+HSJLaIotrKQq0EnXETnG9qUJpj/A1CtZfbRCWDYzrJar/al5U4v1sgAM IevLDHMHtlipiKx5Ugjr7NBYd8OCY542zWoYrqEHJ9PI5VebhCD1yhUi+HKKQFDdiDH1 utulZJSmvVaCcMmDQBYrToRn3lSfO2Jm6my7fEosYk3mEMVV5afXSp/Y0nPG1stznl3F p+hQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TLc6/F5weAUo5Gr80YxcB73jVhZ6oamfYxQbOI5rB5w=; b=d2gdI2NTibnAssbbhuiqRn4Ozws/WsEvnwwZ78A4gJmXLDueEbrXLQJaqxbc5+xnpO 90M6zeR4LveIkYS86924vbOOKeafQe5mlALLYi5UpYMOojydwRSNeeMJOKL+CxAeCSnD dR4yt0MslgsRqJLvkM1I740G0jkVfxtZ4eN7pIgP3DBVjy8hHy/kIFd/tVfLK/bj/yqJ qdGIgkst8VlDEGFDuEeed+y8JD0BDAXlknw0TcRy2ROg2LXGFZ5diAv+LSv38WjH5hs7 KOm+XeRO9O82Vy3C4R8xGE4qkWcKbmion/QKG1oVCwtR2bIUKZUju5zGUgdq92JHNi6q /5aQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oCKVbBeQFpqgfZXSRFLDQQbd+nIyUSOBhNHkn+XAFIH0tudZn X89fnAXIQDuXmoywm47pjeS35WFfVXAg1M/916I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtUfQlHVLoLagkeQ3cSmWBA7pE03UsYXiDqq92FU8SZUJ/5zXG/IVM9e4Eyj3d/morZ1u8x+f9ETEOksCCxz8=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:3e86:: with SMTP id l128mr11037844ioa.95.1590509187782; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5A720526-CFF7-4F88-9BC3-2132A4412DFE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A720526-CFF7-4F88-9BC3-2132A4412DFE@gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 09:09:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQ019r9rGppsDxPwi-2RSKFM1cPBYxocXZKAy-ZAuTb8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
Cc: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>, taps-ads@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000265dc605a68f4790"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/gaavHlANUDK-vbf6Gx4L7LyE-Ig>
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 16:06:46 -0000

>
> 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> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email