From rai-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 14:14:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579E83A6CFC; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:14:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2703A6849; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:14:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BeOIJmdParju; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7CE3A6D14; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:14:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,591,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="75992095" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2008 14:14:17 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m54LEHGa032363; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:14:17 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m54LEGPe002540; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:14:16 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Francois Audet'" , "'Philip Matthews'" , "'Chris Boulton'" References: <5BA5D472-5A69-4E28-A927-5C7581F9AA03@magma.ca> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1710AF88@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:14:16 -0700 Message-ID: <00bd01c8c687$f25572f0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcjA7ggX9ogAF6YoQhm3m2akNnYKPwAuYA+QATgKDjA= In-Reply-To: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1710AF88@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2204; t=1212614057; x=1213478057; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Sipping]=20[RAI]=20RAI-ART=20review=20 ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 |Sender:=20; bh=jdtkqw6PMQZ4pIIb1uOooUMcnNbleKvGN8FaQMRleDo=; b=XvYA+u+IdnpkRGD+4kK7P86Sg2B3xkaQ6hTv5HWidyvj6PFgihSspmbq26 NuUijMHIyvrOn5OkmukX+xL/h7KTRx6Eovqhj3v/fJ6rQMP3JLYLVH8j8ybl 6sxM9p8OmITdo58yFaMGSvtI8EitVRk8b9FEy4bPW4oLg+j0kImdA=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: sipping@ietf.org, rai@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RAI] [Sipping] RAI-ART review ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francois Audet > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:30 AM > To: Philip Matthews; Chris Boulton > Cc: rai@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sipping] [RAI] RAI-ART review > ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 > > > > 3) I haven't been following the Outbound and GRUU work > > closely, but my imperfect understanding is that both of these > > are part of the NAT traversal solution for SIP. Don't you > > need to include Outbound and GRUU in the solution profiles? > > Similarly, shouldn't GRUU be discussed in the first part of > section 3? > > I actually had exactly the same comment in my review. > > My preference would be to get rid of the "profile" concept altogether, > i.e. remove section 3.2.5, since itoffers very little value > and much confusion. > > If we must keep the concept of profiles, then it needs to be > expanded to > cover draft-ietf-sip-outbound. > > As a side note: you don't need GRUU at all anymore for NAT > traversal of > SIP. What you need is the +sip.instance id which is described in SIP > outbound (and yes, GRUU refers back to outbound). But you don't need > support for GRUU per say. > > This is one of the many problems that I alluded in section > 4.1 which is > now quite out-of-synch with outbound. There are others. For example, > usage of Supported and Required is incorrect. The tokens in > the Path header > don't conform to the recomendations in outbound. The Route > header usage is > not described properly. Furthermore, there are still remnants > of pre-outbound > days in the text (e.g., innapropriate references to rport and > connect-reuse). > > I am planning to propose the changes to fix this section in a > seperate email. What is the value of two documents (outbound and nat-scenarios) which both have call flows, examples, and discussion around how SIP is supposed to work over NATs? It seems a recipe for unintended disagreement and errata to re-align them. Is the value that nat-scenarios would be a BCP and outbound is standards-track? -d _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 15:00:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB373A6D4B; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:00:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CD23A6D43; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.343 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pm27ZWc9rB1L; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AAF3A6D1A; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m54Lxrg00599; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:59:53 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:59:52 -0500 Message-ID: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF173249BF@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <00bd01c8c687$f25572f0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Sipping] [RAI] RAI-ART review ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 Thread-Index: AcjA7ggX9ogAF6YoQhm3m2akNnYKPwAuYA+QATgKDjAAAYbpoA== References: <5BA5D472-5A69-4E28-A927-5C7581F9AA03@magma.ca> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1710AF88@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <00bd01c8c687$f25572f0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> From: "Francois Audet" To: "Dan Wing" , "Philip Matthews" , "Chris Boulton" Cc: sipping@ietf.org, rai@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RAI] [Sipping] RAI-ART review ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org > What is the value of two documents (outbound and nat-scenarios) > which both have call flows, examples, and discussion around how SIP > is supposed to work over NATs? It seems a recipe for unintended > disagreement and errata to re-align them. > > Is the value that nat-scenarios would be a BCP and outbound is > standards-track? I that's that's probably a good description. I can assure you that I have done a very thorough review of the Signalling section to ensure that it aligns with sip-outbound, because I had the exact same concern as you. Remember my intial proposal was to remove the section but the group decided otherwise. So I was left with the alternative of actually doing the work on the section myself... _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 13 09:35:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267323A6885; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:35:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C483A6816; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1m21iwm4FGRp; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate.siemenscomms.co.uk (mailgate.siemenscomms.co.uk [195.171.110.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BAE3A67F4; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net ([137.223.219.235]) by siemenscomms.co.uk (PMDF V6.3-x14 #31430) with ESMTP id <0K2E00F41U34SO@siemenscomms.co.uk>; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:35:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:35:27 +0100 From: "Elwell, John" In-reply-to: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1710AF88@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> To: Francois Audet , Philip Matthews , Chris Boulton Message-id: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0CE4AE7@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Thread-Topic: [Sipping] [RAI] RAI-ART review ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 Thread-Index: AcjA7ggX9ogAF6YoQhm3m2akNnYKPwAuYA+QAvLSK6A= Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <5BA5D472-5A69-4E28-A927-5C7581F9AA03@magma.ca> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1710AF88@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> Cc: sipping@ietf.org, rai@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RAI] [Sipping] RAI-ART review ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org Francois, Just catching up on some old email - I feel I must challenge a statement you made below. > -----Original Message----- > From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francois Audet > Sent: 29 May 2008 17:30 > To: Philip Matthews; Chris Boulton > Cc: rai@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sipping] [RAI] RAI-ART review > ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 > > ... > > As a side note: you don't need GRUU at all anymore for NAT > traversal of > SIP. What you need is the +sip.instance id which is described in SIP > outbound (and yes, GRUU refers back to outbound). But you don't need > support for GRUU per say. [JRE] Why don't you need GRUU? UA A has a private IP address and forms a contact URI from it, instead of using a GRUU. UA A sends it in the Contact header field of a dialog-forming request or response to UA B. UA B then sends it in a REFER request to UA C. UA C is in public address space. How does the dereferenced request get from UA C to UA A? John _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 13 09:44:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1653A693B; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:44:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1703A63D3; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:43:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.375 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fjrbuxMlkIHE; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F24D3A68CE; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m5DGh0v26075; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:43:00 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:44:20 -0500 Message-ID: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1760FC63@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> In-Reply-To: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0CE4AE7@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Sipping] [RAI] RAI-ART review ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 Thread-Index: AcjA7ggX9ogAF6YoQhm3m2akNnYKPwAuYA+QAvLSK6AAAGqJEA== References: <5BA5D472-5A69-4E28-A927-5C7581F9AA03@magma.ca> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1710AF88@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0CE4AE7@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> From: "Francois Audet" To: "Elwell, John" , "Philip Matthews" , "Chris Boulton" Cc: sipping@ietf.org, rai@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RAI] [Sipping] RAI-ART review ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org Because the part of GRUU that you are using, i.e., the +sip.instance, has been moved to draft-ietf-sip-outbound. You do not need to send Supported: gruu when you register. You just add the +sip.instance. All this is described in draft-ietf-sip-outbound. > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:john.elwell@siemens.com] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 09:35 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Philip Matthews; Chris Boulton > Cc: rai@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Sipping] [RAI] RAI-ART review > ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 > > Francois, > > Just catching up on some old email - I feel I must challenge > a statement you made below. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org > > [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francois Audet > > Sent: 29 May 2008 17:30 > > To: Philip Matthews; Chris Boulton > > Cc: rai@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Sipping] [RAI] RAI-ART review > > ofdraft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-08 > > > > > ... > > > > As a side note: you don't need GRUU at all anymore for NAT > traversal > > of SIP. What you need is the +sip.instance id which is described in > > SIP outbound (and yes, GRUU refers back to outbound). But you don't > > need support for GRUU per say. > [JRE] Why don't you need GRUU? UA A has a private IP address > and forms a contact URI from it, instead of using a GRUU. UA > A sends it in the Contact header field of a dialog-forming > request or response to UA B. UA B then sends it in a REFER > request to UA C. UA C is in public address space. How does > the dereferenced request get from UA C to UA A? > > John > _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 19:46:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A085E3A68A7; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:46:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC1F3A6978 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:46:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f7+zhxSrk98h for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B463A6837 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,700,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="117980928" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2008 19:46:15 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5P2kFCN032575; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:46:15 -0700 Received: from [128.107.103.28] ([128.107.103.28]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5P2kFok005302; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:46:15 GMT Message-Id: <2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> From: Cullen Jennings To: rai@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:47:05 -0700 References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=867; t=1214361975; x=1215225975; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20 |Subject:=20Let's=20talk=20about=20a=20Dublin=20agenda |Sender:=20; bh=cdzm5bsxzvwHUmI4Eqzdu0kSI0dAVcKGgCAKw6WUi/8=; b=aWYSnHFa/VWtrHODNVNki5+gxteJPlyl6v/sgm9zmtqa4c0RwpdvPIIviY pCpM3TgU2zQz//IViWdDOKdnoY4D64ft0S3zSmW1ZdRQMwS0dsQkF+ZTHUTl WPjHqUKiQZ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: Hadriel Kaplan Subject: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org moved thread to RAI ... On Jun 24, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > Dan - your suggestion was for groups that have more overlap (e.g., > SIP, > MMUSIC with XCON, MEDIACTRL). The groups Hadriel is explicitly > suggesting might just work (well it does for me :). Upping the number of overlaps seems like a good plan but everyone seems to think it is a good idea to overlap someone else's work. Keep in mind RAI has a much more cohesive set of work than many area just by the nature of the work. Previous message from xcon chair on conflicting with SIP and MUSIC at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai-discuss/current/msg00011.html I've received similar messages from mediactrl folks. Even the AVT / ENUM overlap generates problems complaints. speechsc, iptel, and sigtran are not meeting so no need to overlap them _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 20:17:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD65E3A694D; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:17:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E58E3A694D for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:17:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T+suk58fnojh for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8253A6837 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:19:27 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:16:46 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: "rai@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:17:30 -0400 Thread-Topic: Let's talk about IETF agendas Thread-Index: AcjWLzVVXmf8yzqAT3SGmzN/KRwFSQACpurgAAVAu3AAAErVgA== Message-ID: References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [RAI] Let's talk about IETF agendas X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org Howdy, So for those of you not on the SIP mailing list, we were talking about the lack of meeting time at IETF meetings for RAI WG/BOF slots. A short while back Dan proposed overlapping some WGs, but to overlap with SIP or MMUSIC which is a bit tough to swallow given their large scope/applicability. So, I proposed the following instead... Thread-safe: Thread-1 Thread-2 Thread-3 -------- -------- -------- speermint xcon p2psip drinks mediactrl enum speechsc Global: ------- avt bliss mmusic simple sip sipping ecrit geopriv Any Thread WG can conflict with a WG from another Thread. No Global or Thread WG can conflict with a Global WG. You could probably create a Thread-4 with ecrit and geopriv, but 3 concurrent threads seem enough. -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] > > I was shot down when I proposed it: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai- > discuss/current/threads.html#00009 > > I do hope we reconsider. > > -d _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 20:27:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D7F3A698C; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615293A68A7 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:27:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IBfWhHZZomez for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D46A3A6837 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:28:58 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:26:22 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: Cullen Jennings , "rai@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:27:03 -0400 Thread-Topic: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda Thread-Index: AcjWbYk/0FnX/J6pSlOkjsRMyi6VxAABH+QA Message-ID: References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Cullen Jennings > > I've received similar messages from mediactrl folks. Even the AVT / > ENUM overlap generates problems complaints. Yup those are both ones I want to attend as well, but we'll never get 100% satisfaction - plenty of us want to attend some non-RAI WG's too, but that's life. The best we can do is no conflicts for the "big-ticket" WGs, and no conflicts for related-topic WGs. I think it's still better than artificially reducing the meeting times, fwiw. -hadriel p.s. obviously we can't have more than two concurrent RAI meetings in any given time slot though, due to only having 2 AD's. _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 20:46:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03EB28C126; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:46:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE723A6823 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:46:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbZ8JJIc1s8t for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7633A6A6F for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,700,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="44287778" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2008 20:46:43 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5P3khpI014877; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:46:43 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5P3kgDf020264; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:46:42 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Cullen Jennings'" , References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:46:42 -0700 Message-ID: <0aea01c8d676$15686fb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> Thread-Index: AcjWbaSEI3psElPERTK4sGPJpxxovAABQKNg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2345; t=1214365603; x=1215229603; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Let's=20talk=20about=20a=20Dublin=20age nda |Sender:=20; bh=+AgS044pxGoxGdxio22tDwjSTWju+hGoRN4p8YRBue8=; b=ig0ZxMsF6+twgHD/poSbQj7D58qa4BHvKHKwjzmxQan7R8ZyVZLA2ikDgK gQGzL8pw/fIQuVk0URBAbCYxOKG8u1LcfhS22GhK+Y0Bgi7R3qdRD27PMHSb RD5l/MFMBC; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: 'Hadriel Kaplan' Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org > moved thread to RAI ... > > On Jun 24, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > > > Dan - your suggestion was for groups that have more overlap (e.g., > > SIP, MMUSIC with XCON, MEDIACTRL). The groups Hadriel is explicitly > > suggesting might just work (well it does for me :). > > Upping the number of overlaps seems like a good plan but everyone > seems to think it is a good idea to overlap someone else's > work. Keep in mind RAI has a much more cohesive set of work than > many area just by the nature of the work. > > Previous message from xcon chair on conflicting with SIP and MUSIC at > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai-discuss/current/msg00011.html Yes, that post harkens back to "Dan's specific examples of working groups that could overlap is bad". I have acknowledged the deficiency of my earlier post to rai-discuss earlier today on SIP. Please remove those specific WG examples from your in-memory cache. > I've received similar messages from mediactrl folks. Even the AVT / > ENUM overlap generates problems complaints. That is the nature of the beast especially considering that the IETF does not use a computer to help optimize scheduling and reduce conflicts. I have been reading very good things about computers in the newspaper and I think it's something we should be examining. (half a smiley) > speechsc, iptel, and sigtran are not meeting so no need to > overlap them Good deal. I looked at the published Dublin agenda (as I have no access to unpublished information), and INT and RTG both have *many* working groups that overlap. They must be superhuman, and their work must be entirely unrelated! If we are going to split RAI groups into smaller groups, we will have to face our fear of overlapping working groups. I suggest we all bulk up at the gym like INT and RTG have apparently done. RAI has 14 working groups meeting. I am sure there are other combinations that could be mulled over; someone who paid better attention in their combinatorics class could even calculate how many there are. Hadriel has a suggestion on the table -- let's use that as the straw-man, and please ignore my earlier examples of working groups that could overlap. "Discuss." -d _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 24 22:49:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC783A6939; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:49:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11ED3A6939 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:49:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gLRE4u9LeEne for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isrexch01.israel.polycom.com (fw.polycom.co.il [212.179.41.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5843A68D5 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:49:00 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:49:31 +0300 Message-ID: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C05BD0F91@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [RAI] Let's talk about IETF agendas Thread-Index: AcjWLzVVXmf8yzqAT3SGmzN/KRwFSQACpurgAAVAu3AAAErVgAANv7XA References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> From: "Even, Roni" To: "Hadriel Kaplan" , Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about IETF agendas X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Another degree of freedom is the session length. Maybe we can look at being more flexible with the session times requested for a WG since not all time slots are the same and have more flexibility. Roni Even > -----Original Message----- > From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Hadriel Kaplan > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:18 AM > To: rai@ietf.org > Subject: [RAI] Let's talk about IETF agendas > > Howdy, > So for those of you not on the SIP mailing list, we were talking about > the lack of meeting time at IETF meetings for RAI WG/BOF slots. A > short while back Dan proposed overlapping some WGs, but to overlap with > SIP or MMUSIC which is a bit tough to swallow given their large > scope/applicability. > > So, I proposed the following instead... > > Thread-safe: > Thread-1 Thread-2 Thread-3 > -------- -------- -------- > speermint xcon p2psip > drinks mediactrl > enum speechsc > > > Global: > ------- > avt > bliss > mmusic > simple > sip > sipping > ecrit > geopriv > > Any Thread WG can conflict with a WG from another Thread. No Global or > Thread WG can conflict with a Global WG. > You could probably create a Thread-4 with ecrit and geopriv, but 3 > concurrent threads seem enough. > > -hadriel > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] > > > > I was shot down when I proposed it: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai- > > discuss/current/threads.html#00009 > > > > I do hope we reconsider. > > > > -d > > _______________________________________________ > RAI mailing list > RAI@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 25 01:35:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50AE28C0EF; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:35:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3653828C0EF for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:35:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.045 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.045 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QOttyDBjjS0I for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.freeserve.com (smtp1.wanadoo.co.uk [193.252.22.158]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0F528C0EE for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3014.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 88860880008A; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:35:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Codalogic (user-5440fcb9.wfd81a.dsl.pol.co.uk [84.64.252.185]) by mwinf3014.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 966CD8800088; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:35:13 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20080625083513616.966CD8800088@mwinf3014.me.freeserve.com Message-ID: <004b01c8d69e$62a386c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> From: "Pete Cordell" To: "Dan Wing" , "'Cullen Jennings'" , References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> <0aea01c8d676$15686fb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:35:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Cc: 'Hadriel Kaplan' Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org I looked at the agenda and at the moment the whole of Thursday looks pretty clash free with regard to VoIP work. Would it be possible to get volunteers for a bunch of design teams that could each focus on progressing a different draft? The design teams could potentially be given specific issues to address like work sheets you get at school! For example, sort out these issues, document the problem, document the possible solutions, document the proposed solution and why you have selected. The result of that would basically be a report that could be something that went on the list for wider approval. Or the design team could just focus on addressing editorial issues with a view to getting a new version out, or whatever was required. One issue is obviously meeting rooms. The IETF might be able to provide some space. Alternatively it might be possible for the team members to club together and share the cost of a room (it ought to be a fairly small amount compared to attending the meeting). If that fails, small numbers of people could always meet in someone's (bed)room (although you'll have to bear in mind that these would be UK sized rooms rather than US!). There's obviously always the communal areas, but getting out of the hub bub would be preferable in my opinion. If Thursday ends up being booked up, maybe in future such a procedure could be done on the Sunday before the meeting. The design teams could then report results in the actual meetings. I know that people don't like to stay the extra days, but I think a lot of work could be done at such focussed sessions and it would be easier to do an extra day at an IETF rather than travel to a separate interim. Well, even if that's not the most amazing idea ever, maybe it'll give someone else some ideas!!! Cheers and enjoy your meeting (I'll be on holiday!). Pete. -- ============================================= Pete Cordell Codalogic ============================================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Cullen Jennings'" ; Cc: "'Hadriel Kaplan'" Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda >> moved thread to RAI ... >> >> On Jun 24, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: >> >> > Dan - your suggestion was for groups that have more overlap (e.g., >> > SIP, MMUSIC with XCON, MEDIACTRL). The groups Hadriel is explicitly >> > suggesting might just work (well it does for me :). >> >> Upping the number of overlaps seems like a good plan but everyone >> seems to think it is a good idea to overlap someone else's >> work. Keep in mind RAI has a much more cohesive set of work than >> many area just by the nature of the work. >> >> Previous message from xcon chair on conflicting with SIP and MUSIC at >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai-discuss/current/msg00011.html > > Yes, that post harkens back to "Dan's specific examples of working groups > that > could overlap is bad". I have acknowledged the deficiency of my earlier > post > to rai-discuss earlier today on SIP. Please remove those specific WG > examples > from your in-memory cache. > >> I've received similar messages from mediactrl folks. Even the AVT / >> ENUM overlap generates problems complaints. > > That is the nature of the beast especially considering that the IETF > does not use a computer to help optimize scheduling and reduce conflicts. > I have been reading very good things about computers in the newspaper > and I think it's something we should be examining. (half a smiley) > >> speechsc, iptel, and sigtran are not meeting so no need to >> overlap them > > Good deal. > > I looked at the published Dublin agenda (as I have no access to > unpublished > information), and INT and RTG both have *many* working groups that > overlap. > They must be superhuman, and their work must be entirely unrelated! If we > are > going to split RAI groups into smaller groups, we will have to face our > fear > of overlapping working groups. I suggest we all bulk up at the gym like > INT > and RTG have apparently done. > > RAI has 14 working groups meeting. I am sure there are other combinations > that could be mulled over; someone who paid better attention in their > combinatorics class could even calculate how many there are. Hadriel has > a > suggestion > on > the table -- let's use that as the straw-man, and please ignore my earlier > examples of working groups that could overlap. > > "Discuss." > > -d > > _______________________________________________ > RAI mailing list > RAI@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai > _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 25 05:57:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF97F3A6A91; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250933A68B9 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.273 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vy6W+IuWf5R7 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381413A6A89 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s73602 (cpe-72-190-0-23.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.0.23]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1KBUYk29Tr-0000BH; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:16 -0400 Message-ID: <02ae01c8d6c3$186d6b50$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:57:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+U2VnJSg0qECjik3pboCu3W+swXeGtnrpUl8w gN2yXfrrX0oKCV+Mcf0tL2FhT3U/R25YCIuFK0C776tG6rclyv XAg5BXhm/I+j+ORHKg1tKDv/SKSYroXFLKbWm32RHo= Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org Ummm... > p.s. obviously we can't have more than two concurrent RAI meetings in any > given time slot though, due to only having 2 AD's. This is not obvious to me. *If we made decisions in working group face-to-face meetings*, it might be obvious. But the purpose of face-to-face meetings is to have high-bandwidth exchanges and propose resolutions to issues that couldn't be resolved on the mailing list, right? Outside RAI, it does happen that working groups meet without ADs in the room (example - any slot where an area has two meetings, and one of the ADs needs to attend a BOF in another area). I remember co-chairing PILC more than once without either AD in the room. Please feel free to ignore this for now, because we have two ADs and we aren't overlapping at all, but if we ever do figure out how to overlap in RAI, I might mention it again. Thanks, Spencer _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 25 07:08:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F133A6834; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:08:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB8E3A6834 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:08:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmJy3+zX2Tok for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com (zcars04f.nortel.com [47.129.242.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C4A3A67E3 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.72]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m5PE7qE19146; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:07:52 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:05:07 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <004b01c8d69e$62a386c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda Thread-Index: AcjWnnAzKwvMzFzNQjieOCBoHIT7qAALTvFQ References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> <0aea01c8d676$15686fb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <004b01c8d69e$62a386c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> From: "Mary Barnes" To: "Pete Cordell" , "Dan Wing" , "Cullen Jennings" , Cc: Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org Pete, I don't think this would be an effective use of main meeting time. Also, I do imagine that the currently non-RAI session will be filled before the agenda is finalized. I agree there is high value in design teams meeting face-to-face, but I strongly believe that must happen outside the main sessions or during sessions in which the primary members of the design team can miss sessions during those slots. Also, some of us plan on traveling early for these sorts of things, although I realize that doesn't work for everyone. So, I don't think that would work as an across the board approach, but certainly should be considered for some work items. Also, given it's later in the week, it's often not as effective since there typically would not be time to bring any conclusions or items for consensus back the WG, which leads to my next point. I think you really highlight IMHO that WGs (not all mind you) are not doing an effective job at working on issues outside the main meetings. Given the huge gap between the upcoming meeting and the March meeting, my experience has been that some WGs have not made reasonable progress. Regards, Mary. -----Original Message----- From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cordell Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:35 AM To: Dan Wing; 'Cullen Jennings'; rai@ietf.org Cc: 'Hadriel Kaplan' Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda I looked at the agenda and at the moment the whole of Thursday looks pretty clash free with regard to VoIP work. Would it be possible to get volunteers for a bunch of design teams that could each focus on progressing a different draft? The design teams could potentially be given specific issues to address like work sheets you get at school! For example, sort out these issues, document the problem, document the possible solutions, document the proposed solution and why you have selected. The result of that would basically be a report that could be something that went on the list for wider approval. Or the design team could just focus on addressing editorial issues with a view to getting a new version out, or whatever was required. One issue is obviously meeting rooms. The IETF might be able to provide some space. Alternatively it might be possible for the team members to club together and share the cost of a room (it ought to be a fairly small amount compared to attending the meeting). If that fails, small numbers of people could always meet in someone's (bed)room (although you'll have to bear in mind that these would be UK sized rooms rather than US!). There's obviously always the communal areas, but getting out of the hub bub would be preferable in my opinion. If Thursday ends up being booked up, maybe in future such a procedure could be done on the Sunday before the meeting. The design teams could then report results in the actual meetings. I know that people don't like to stay the extra days, but I think a lot of work could be done at such focussed sessions and it would be easier to do an extra day at an IETF rather than travel to a separate interim. Well, even if that's not the most amazing idea ever, maybe it'll give someone else some ideas!!! Cheers and enjoy your meeting (I'll be on holiday!). Pete. -- ============================================= Pete Cordell Codalogic ============================================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Cullen Jennings'" ; Cc: "'Hadriel Kaplan'" Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda >> moved thread to RAI ... >> >> On Jun 24, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: >> >> > Dan - your suggestion was for groups that have more overlap (e.g., >> > SIP, MMUSIC with XCON, MEDIACTRL). The groups Hadriel is explicitly >> > suggesting might just work (well it does for me :). >> >> Upping the number of overlaps seems like a good plan but everyone >> seems to think it is a good idea to overlap someone else's >> work. Keep in mind RAI has a much more cohesive set of work than >> many area just by the nature of the work. >> >> Previous message from xcon chair on conflicting with SIP and MUSIC at >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai-discuss/current/msg00011.html > > Yes, that post harkens back to "Dan's specific examples of working groups > that > could overlap is bad". I have acknowledged the deficiency of my earlier > post > to rai-discuss earlier today on SIP. Please remove those specific WG > examples > from your in-memory cache. > >> I've received similar messages from mediactrl folks. Even the AVT / >> ENUM overlap generates problems complaints. > > That is the nature of the beast especially considering that the IETF > does not use a computer to help optimize scheduling and reduce conflicts. > I have been reading very good things about computers in the newspaper > and I think it's something we should be examining. (half a smiley) > >> speechsc, iptel, and sigtran are not meeting so no need to >> overlap them > > Good deal. > > I looked at the published Dublin agenda (as I have no access to > unpublished > information), and INT and RTG both have *many* working groups that > overlap. > They must be superhuman, and their work must be entirely unrelated! If we > are > going to split RAI groups into smaller groups, we will have to face our > fear > of overlapping working groups. I suggest we all bulk up at the gym like > INT > and RTG have apparently done. > > RAI has 14 working groups meeting. I am sure there are other combinations > that could be mulled over; someone who paid better attention in their > combinatorics class could even calculate how many there are. Hadriel has > a > suggestion > on > the table -- let's use that as the straw-man, and please ignore my earlier > examples of working groups that could overlap. > > "Discuss." > > -d > > _______________________________________________ > RAI mailing list > RAI@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai > _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 25 07:13:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEEF3A6848; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:13:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7FA3A6848 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:13:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQBTSe4nlRZg for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CD43A6834 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.72]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m5PEBZm17898; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:11:35 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:10:21 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda Thread-Index: AcjWbYk/0FnX/J6pSlOkjsRMyi6VxAABH+QAABad9YA= References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> From: "Mary Barnes" To: "Hadriel Kaplan" , "Cullen Jennings" , Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org I agree we can't please everyone and I would add an additional suggestion that if we do the "Thread approach" that I really like in general, we make sure that we rotate which WGs conflict, to allow those of us that are expected to monitor some of the other groups a chance to at least periodically attend. Per my response to Pete, I think this approach would work well and re-enforces that we should be doing more work on the mailing list between meetings, so it shouldn't be so critical if one misses one WG session each year, at least for the sessions in which we are actively contributing. However, I will make one final note that sometimes we will have conflicts with this approach, as some of us have work in different threads and although this might be a minority, it would have to be considered in the thread approach. The tools that track authors and active WGs would be very useful in this case. Mary. -----Original Message----- From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:27 PM To: Cullen Jennings; rai@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda > -----Original Message----- > From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Cullen Jennings > > I've received similar messages from mediactrl folks. Even the AVT / > ENUM overlap generates problems complaints. Yup those are both ones I want to attend as well, but we'll never get 100% satisfaction - plenty of us want to attend some non-RAI WG's too, but that's life. The best we can do is no conflicts for the "big-ticket" WGs, and no conflicts for related-topic WGs. I think it's still better than artificially reducing the meeting times, fwiw. -hadriel p.s. obviously we can't have more than two concurrent RAI meetings in any given time slot though, due to only having 2 AD's. _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 25 10:14:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2133A6A55; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC5D3A6A55 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:14:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KdTPQPNgf+Zd for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DE63A68B7 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:14:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,703,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="44599042" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2008 10:14:34 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5PHEYoQ031387; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:14:34 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5PHEYux021828; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:34 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Mary Barnes'" , References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:14:34 -0700 Message-ID: <0da401c8d6e6$f0faa780$c2f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcjWbYk/0FnX/J6pSlOkjsRMyi6VxAABH+QAABad9YAABobHAA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=576; t=1214414074; x=1215278074; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[RAI]=20Let's=20talk=20about=20a=20Dubl in=20agenda |Sender:=20; bh=krs5zXc9d+unYf+dHlVM04jPKbwYgKGl74pKs6asNT8=; b=lqSbfQCd2GGgDb/Jh3UXOVXTxMAFR07TIsRqpuw/pXsWxu1uXszzP4lFLM yqGiEZatLlSYIs3s7ai94dLYd+jRlcUxSTPgs9ZRpn0GdVox699OJSoduqay 5iftBXwwLZ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org > The tools that track authors and active WGs would be very useful > in this case. Yep. As would collecting real information from real attendees -- such as when they pay their registration fee. And give each IESG member an additional 50 "votes" to tweak the algorithm. This would have an additional benefit of additional encouragement to pay registration fee earlier (rather than later), as you get to vote on which WGs you don't want to conflict -- somewhat like how WG chairs, today, indicate their #1/#2/#3 conflict list. "Where there is a will ..." -d _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 26 13:46:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72EC3A68B5; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:46:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F228D3A68B5 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3TghT74svauy for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nylon.softarmor.com (nylon.softarmor.com [66.135.38.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD333A67EF for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.103] (cpe-76-185-142-113.tx.res.rr.com [76.185.142.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by nylon.softarmor.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m5QKk0PG005564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:46:10 -0500 From: Dean Willis To: Pete Cordell In-Reply-To: <004b01c8d69e$62a386c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> X-Priority: 3 References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> <0aea01c8d676$15686fb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <004b01c8d69e$62a386c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:45:55 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) Cc: rai@ietf.org, 'Hadriel Kaplan' Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:35 AM, Pete Cordell wrote: > If Thursday ends up being booked up, maybe in future such a > procedure could be done on the Sunday before the meeting. The > design teams could then report results in the actual meetings. I > know that people don't like to stay the extra days, but I think a > lot of work could be done at such focussed sessions and it would be > easier to do an extra day at an IETF rather than travel to a > separate interim. > I think Sunday workshop time is a great idea. -- Dean _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 26 23:48:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A943A684E; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:48:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFC53A684E for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qKbAZdOZOOLs for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E99B3A6407 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id EF3D821B45; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:46:46 +0200 (CEST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ad997bb000004ec0-dc-48648cd6813b Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id DC2A521B1F; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:46:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:47:17 +0200 Received: from [159.107.2.72] ([159.107.2.72]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:47:16 +0200 Message-ID: <48648CED.8050506@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:47:09 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dean Willis References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> <0aea01c8d676$15686fb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <004b01c8d69e$62a386c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 06:47:16.0602 (UTC) FILETIME=[A357CDA0:01C8D821] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: rai@ietf.org, 'Hadriel Kaplan' Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org On Sunday, the IESG usually meets in the morning and the IAB in the afternoon (although these slots can be swapped). Other than that (i.e., if you do not need any I* member to attend your session), it is a good day. Cheers, Gonzalo Dean Willis wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:35 AM, Pete Cordell wrote: > >> If Thursday ends up being booked up, maybe in future such a procedure >> could be done on the Sunday before the meeting. The design teams >> could then report results in the actual meetings. I know that people >> don't like to stay the extra days, but I think a lot of work could be >> done at such focussed sessions and it would be easier to do an extra >> day at an IETF rather than travel to a separate interim. >> > > I think Sunday workshop time is a great idea. > > -- > Dean > _______________________________________________ > RAI mailing list > RAI@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai From rai-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 27 06:12:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rai-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rai-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88DC3A6816; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rai@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB7B3A6816 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:12:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JvCmD8zWB+Eg for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3463A67EF for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s73602 (cpe-72-190-0-23.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.0.23]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1KCDke2HfX-00008z; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:12:33 -0400 Message-ID: <0a2301c8d857$85779460$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <08a301c8d64e$f55b8cb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com><2E6D2F77-A724-44D7-9861-ADE3169746AD@cisco.com> <0aea01c8d676$15686fb0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <004b01c8d69e$62a386c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> <48648CED.8050506@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:12:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18+qM4yVXHdim8m4cGWNWpfv2E8iFgmt+ouFeu utLrM8TvZxH2z5s/D7vCTFl8jLcdlPxMKX5sRfBPE2+o7dxgwY g3MT/i3n4EOxVcsS62+4CrmJZAZh4muvGIwyxzwLE4= Subject: Re: [RAI] Let's talk about a Dublin agenda X-BeenThere: rai@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: rai-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rai-bounces@ietf.org The problem is, there are only so many degrees of freedom. - meet on Sunday? - meet on Friday afteroon/Saturday afterwards? - meet in parallel tracks? - meet late-night? - do our work on the mailing list and reserve meeting time for high-bandwidth discussion of issues that we haven't been able to resolve on the mailing list? :-) but that should be orthogonal... > On Sunday, the IESG usually meets in the morning and the IAB in the > afternoon (although these slots can be swapped). Other than that (i.e., if > you do not need any I* member to attend your session), it is a good day. Are we solving a problem that other areas share? If so... It is a matter of public record that much of the IESG and IAB met with ITU representatives on Saturday before the Chicago IETF, so it's probably not physically impossible for the IESG and IAB meetings to move to Saturday before (for any IETF nn, where nn > 72), and they might be motivated to do that, if the result was higher-quality documents that are completed closer to working group milestone dates... Thanks, Spencer _______________________________________________ RAI mailing list RAI@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai