Re: [tcpm] Presentation slot requests for IETF 108 (online)

["Scharf, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

Rod,

Tim Wicinski has already mentioned that "update" metadata can be used to keep record of the history.

Also, I believe it is quite common in the IETF to rename I-Ds if they move between WGs. For individual submissions, this is probably not formally required, though.

The advantage of -tcpm- is that it is then more apparent on which list the discussion shall take place. Not all readers of I-Ds are familiar with all IETF internals.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodney W. Grimes <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 8:21 PM
> To: Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Presentation slot requests for IETF 108 (online)
> 
> Michael,
> 	Shouldnt the datatracker entry in its entierity be moved
> to tcpm since tcpm is now taking on the work of the closed mptcp wg?
> That way history of the document is preserved and can be easier
> to research.
> 
> 	I am not sure this is even possible, but loosing the
> provadence of a document because it moved WG's seems problematic.
> 
> Regards,
> Rod
> 
> > Markus,
> >
> > Thanks for the request.
> >
> > It may make sense to resubmit the I-D as -tcpm- if it shall be presented in
> TCPM. Then it shows up in datatracker in the right context.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 9:55 AM
> > > To: Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: Presentation slot requests for IETF 108 (online)
> > >
> > > Dear Michaels, Yoshi
> > >
> > > Since MPTCP WG is closed and TCPM takes care, Jiao and I would like to
> > > present implementation updates (probably also a new draft version -02)
> for
> > >
> > > * draft-amend-mptcp-robe / "Multipath TCP Robust Session
> Establishment"
> > > * Jiao Kang / Markus Amend
> > > * 20min
> > >
> > > Just in case we are not able to update the recent -01 to a -02, is it still
> > > required to move the -01 to TCPM before #108?
> > >
> > > Br
> > >
> > > Markus
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tcpm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
> > > Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020 09:15
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: tcpm-chairs <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: [tcpm] Presentation slot requests for IETF 108 (online)
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Given that we had a pretty packed agenda during the virtual interim
> meeting,
> > > the chairs have asked for two slots during IETF 108. This basically implies
> that
> > > we have again the 2:30 hour slot that TCPM used to have for many years.
> > >
> > > According to the draft agenda for IETF 108, TCPM has been scheduled for
> > > Monday Session I (1:40) and Monday Session II (0:50).
> > >
> > > If you are interested in presenting, please let the chairs know until
> > > **Monday 2020-07-13**:
> > >
> > > * Draft name / presentation title
> > > * Presenter
> > > * Total duration (including Q&A)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Michael (2x) and Yoshi
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tcpm mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> 
> --
> Rod Grimes                                                 [e-mail]