Re: [xrblock] do we need to meet at IETF 94?

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Fri, 11 September 2015 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08351B523E for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hci7iYZX9NKa for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4C51B5197 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BXM05924; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 01:32:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:32:08 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.99]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:32:04 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] do we need to meet at IETF 94?
Thread-Index: AdDr+abjtAhG/47pR7qsbpm8rnxX8wAMyb0A
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 01:32:03 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB863E4A62@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5CB216EA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5CB216EA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.144]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB863E4A62nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/_LjgI1HpfBc5oM4WbATSKw180jI>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] do we need to meet at IETF 94?
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 01:32:16 -0000

Hi Dan,

I think maybe we can keep the current meeting plan. The errata to RFC 7003 is a very simple document, and I believe Varun will finish it before next meeting. So we can discuss both of errata to RFC7003 and draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics together in the meeting to move them forward.

BR,
Rachel

From: xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 2:51 AM
To: xrblock
Subject: [xrblock] do we need to meet at IETF 94?


Hi,

Our AD asked if we can consider alternatives to a f2f meeting in Yokohama at IETF 94. As you know meeting space is an expensive resource, and scheduling became more and more difficult with the increase in the number of active WGs. Assuming that video-lc  will be by then sent to the IESG, we have as potential agenda items draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics (which expired and needs to be updated) and the errata to RFC 7003.

Possible options:


1.       Keep the current plans which are meeting at IETF 94 for one hour (request was submitted)

2.       Organizing a virtual interim instead

3.       Working on the mail list only

Please express your preferences.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan