IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 26 May 2020 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 A2A2A3A0F93; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:26:28 -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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 M-FSFJ0VmZsa; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (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 B3B233A0FC4; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93.0.4) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1jdaVw-000BUf-T9; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:25:08 +0200
Received: from ti0182q160-4479.bb.online.no ([84.202.168.179] helo=[192.168.1.4]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.93.0.4) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1jdaVv-00019t-GW; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:25:08 +0200
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Message-Id: <799DD179-79F6-42DC-ADDF-EF37D520A8D8@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8901B9C5-0317-4F13-AAC3-2C57356BA268"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:25:04 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5A720526-CFF7-4F88-9BC3-2132A4412DFE@gmail.com>
Cc: "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, taps-ads@ietf.org
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
References: <5A720526-CFF7-4F88-9BC3-2132A4412DFE@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 84.202.168.179 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=84.202.168.179; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=[192.168.1.4];
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: BE6BEAA72557C8BD51336A93E559F54574045467
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/ygdBa418fzO3Nz6jBR2Z4eUB9Pw>
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 14:26:29 -0000

I agree

(says a man who didn’t get to do anything at all since our last interim  :-(     but, still, …)

Cheers,
Michael


> On May 26, 2020, at 4:17 PM, 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email