Re: [xrblock] XRBLOCK WG meeting at IETF 93?

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <> Tue, 12 May 2015 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C531A89E0 for <>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z42T7JkuBxMR for <>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91B71A89D3 for <>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BSJ90516; Tue, 12 May 2015 00:36:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 12 May 2015 01:36:22 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 12 May 2015 08:36:18 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] XRBLOCK WG meeting at IETF 93?
Thread-Index: AdCAygUWtU7IfXqzSa6Fa5c3cNZIkwK/UwxgACD9jkA=
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 00:36:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86311513nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] XRBLOCK WG meeting at IETF 93?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 00:36:28 -0000

Hi Dan,

Sorry to miss this email. I think video loss concealment should be discussed in next meeting. Maybe one hour is enough. Old conflicts are okay to me.


From: xrblock [] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] XRBLOCK WG meeting at IETF 93?


I did not see any reply to this mail, no opinion one way or another. No answer is interpreted as 'no need to meet' - but I would like to avoid the situation at IETF 92 when we decided not to meet based on the same non-responses to the chairs call and a few folks came later (and too late) and said that they would have used a meeting.

We have two active documents, which actually should be revised soon, and possibly sent to WGLC.

So, please let the WG know if you believe we should meet at IETF 93 or if you believe that we should not meet at IETF 93.

Thanks and Regards,


From: xrblock [] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 12:11 PM
Subject: [xrblock] XRBLOCK WG meeting at IETF 93?


It's time to discuss scheduling of the meeting for the XRBLOCK WG at IETF 93.

-          Do we need to meet or can we do the work on the list?

-          If yes, is one hour enough?

-          If yes, are there any new conflicts that we MUST avoid? Are there any older conflicts that we can take out of the conflicts (or at least critical conflicts) list?

-          Agenda items

Thanks and Regards,