[xrblock] xrblock meeting at IETF 95?

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 11 January 2016 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E959F1A88D7 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 02:23:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UiXFXF7F0sRa for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 02:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B2E1A88DE for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 02:23:40 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,552,1444708800"; d="scan'208,217";a="155402915"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast-smtpauth.us1.avaya.com) ([]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2016 05:23:39 -0500
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 11 Jan 2016 05:23:39 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:23:37 +0100
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: xrblock meeting at IETF 95?
Thread-Index: AdFMWiBjeOdfzc0cRwepJUHUx3WnnA==
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:23:37 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE427C@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE427CAZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/kx24pyxbFseNg40UfQUB_zx1jQg>
Subject: [xrblock] xrblock meeting at IETF 95?
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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:23:43 -0000


Should we meet at IETF 95?

Current status:

-          draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc is in IESG review, was discussed in the last IESG telechat and is now in AD follow-up. We are waiting for clarifications from Rachel's colleagues on the IPR issue

-          draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard completed WGLC, we still wait for the PMON review before issuing a revised version

-          draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics will soon go to WGLC

-          there are no independent submissions on the pipe

Folks who believe that we need a one hour meeting at IETF 95 - please say so. Silence means that you believe that issues can be solved on the mail list and we do not need a meeting.

Thanks and Regards,