[Tsvwg] TSVWG meeting "hum" confirmations with the list

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Wed, 28 March 2007 19:12 UTC

Return-path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWdZ8-0000up-8t; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:12:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWdZ7-0000rb-04 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:12:13 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWdZ5-0001qD-MN for tsvwg@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:12:12 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2007 12:12:11 -0700
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2SJCArb001673 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:12:10 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2SJC6Ek008763 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:12:10 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:12:07 -0700
Received: from jmpolk-wxp.cisco.com ([10.21.117.34]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:12:07 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:12:06 -0500
To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-2116KZmcK8r0000385d@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2007 19:12:07.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA47BAC0:01C7716C]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1504; t=1175109131; x=1175973131; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:=20TSVWG=20meeting=20=22hum=22=20confirmations=20with=20the=20li st |Sender:=20; bh=vFvHR7gKIdA8hJmD5WvMHtoFxA38BapPIWhiq/lEvnY=; b=cNkBT3+SXS6O6WWbeD+SHbaLRwZ52QgRCbHC8IPZT9new+5/uKU0wJrh/swTG2aigkjpk4sS V0BF2wqd5CfG79JC4y0zTX3tzaNr8Z5bJVUQSk5bNVccrbm2cwJvtrml;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Subject: [Tsvwg] TSVWG meeting "hum" confirmations with the list
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org

TSVWG

[Responses to this message are necessary by April 6th]

At last week's TSVWG meeting, the WG did couple of "hums" or actual 
counting of hands to show support for IDs becoming WG items or of 
support for an ID going in a particular direction. This is the report on that:

#1 - To adopt
         draft-swallow-rsvp-user-error-spec-01
as a WG item.

20 hands raised for
0 hands raised against


#2 - counting hands that want Fred's "An EF DSCP for 
Capacity-Admitted Traffic" ID to have a separate DSCP for video:

15 hands raised for
0 hands raised against


If anyone in the WG does not approve of any of these directions or 
approvals made during the TSVWG meetings last please send a note to 
the list (or simply reply to this message) stating so - with what you 
disagree about technically.

Others in TSVWG can respond with their approval of the WG actions 
from the meetings last week as well.

Additionally, the TSVWG chairs believe the 2 MIB IDs presented need 
to become WG items because it is the right thing to do for the 
community, knowing few in the WG have read them, mostly because they 
are not necessarily sexy/attractive subjects to everyone.

Does any disapprove of making either

         draft-renker-tsvwg-udplite-mib-01
or
         draft-persson-v6ops-mib-issue-01.txt

TSVWG WG items?

Please let the list know why you do not believe these should be WG items.


cheers,

James
Lars
Magnus
         IETF TSVWG co-chairs