[xrblock] Future of XRBLOCK

"Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <keith.drage@nokia.com> Wed, 06 April 2016 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B3512D0AC for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wbihaoAkA7H for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com []) (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 21B1212D135 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id C295F5025A893 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:10:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com []) by fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u36KAk2T029258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:10:46 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com []) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u36KAj2o009618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:10:46 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:10:45 +0200
From: "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <keith.drage@nokia.com>
To: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Future of XRBLOCK
Thread-Index: AdGQQGaVsopMEmLrQ9OIr2RIykkSZQ==
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:10:45 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEBB23D@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/JlPUb7eNvL7mB1SO7-icD971dIk>
Subject: [xrblock] Future of XRBLOCK
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xrblock/>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 20:10:50 -0000

Following on from the discussion that has just occurred in the face-to-face meeting.

I would first note that one only really needs a WG to deal with new XR block proposals if the required documentation status is standards track. Perhaps it would be appropriate for people to rejustify why this needs to be standards track rather than just first come first served or expert review.

Secondly, when both PAYLOAD and XRBLOCK were created, there was a view that both these were somewhat special, in that they did not necessarily need to meet, but did need to provide a forum for experts "to turn the handle on the process" and produce something where the relevant experts had looked at it; that in IETF speak is a WG rather than just a mailing list. I do incline still to that. 

Maybe speaking with hindsight, but not sure that the meeting that has just occurred was "value for money"; it could all have been done on the mailing list.