From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Jan 5 06:04:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A1D21F882E for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:04:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H9Q7fXjlXjab for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:04:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FED021F882B for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:04:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q05E4ji9027701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:04:48 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:04:47 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:04:45 +0100 Thread-Topic: Consensus call for the adoption of text Thread-Index: AcyuqpYPP2X31zoKQvaAJ7VXyYqGogdBZmdQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Subject: [bfcpbis] Consensus call for the adoption of text X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:04:51 -0000 (As WG cochair) Somewhat slow to complete this call due to the intervention of Christmas (a= nd a resultant overloaded inbox). I have seen only support for adopting the document so I declare that the co= ntents of the http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sandbakken-dispatch-bfcp-udp-03.= txt should now go forward as a working group document. I believe Tom Kristensen has agreed to act as editor for the document and I= would therefore welcome him to the team and ask him to produce the new wor= king group version of the draft.=20 I suggest we use the name draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis. There have been a couple of comments (both in Taipai and on the WG list) ab= ount rolling this into the existing BFCP text (i.e. a combined text from th= e draft and existing RFC). As this did not form part of the original questi= on) and there are a number of potential options here (including the relatio= nship with the existing RFC 4583 owned by MMUSIC), I'll initiate a separate= thread on this. Therefore I would ask Tom to provide the first WG version as the different = document it currently is (i.e. a difference document, restricting any chang= es on the current author draft to editorial and non-technical changes if an= y have been identified and keeping the existing RFC 4583 material). None of this elaborate process should preclude working group participants m= aking technical comments on the document either now or when the first worki= ng group document has been produced. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Sent: 29 November 2011 15:22 > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: [bfcpbis] Consensus call for the adoption of text >=20 > (As working group cochair) >=20 > In support of our milestone >=20 > Apr 2012 Draft revision of RFC 4582 to IESG >=20 > it is proposed to adopt: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sandbakken-dispatch-bfcp-udp-03.txt >=20 > as a draft text for a working group document. An indicative call was > already supporting of this in the face to face meeting. >=20 > Please respond if you either support or do not support the adoption of > this text as the basis for the working group draft. >=20 > Please also respond if you consider there are specific sections that you > consider need more work before adoption. We can leave these sections out > (or replace them with a drafting note). >=20 > A reasonable criteria on which to base your judgement is whether the > proposed text form a better basis for moving the discussion forward on an= y > particular issues than a blank sheet of paper (or the electronic > equivalent). >=20 > Please respond by Tuesday December 13th 2011. >=20 > Regards >=20 > Keith >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Jan 5 06:26:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1DC21F87F1 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:26:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zkwFe1ub9tDI for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4477221F87FE for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q05EQeU4007550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:26:42 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:26:41 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:26:39 +0100 Thread-Topic: Documentation structure for bfcpbis Thread-Index: AczLtgn5GqdmUNTESd6FX8pDYG5HEw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: [bfcpbis] Documentation structure for bfcpbis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:26:46 -0000 (As WG cochair) I'd like to initiate some discussion on the documentation structure of what= we want produce in the bfcpbis working group. There have been a couple of comments on rolling into the existing BFCP RFC = and we have at least a few options round here. Here at least are a few thou= ghts: What ---- As a working group we have at least a couple of issues to address: - identify what we want in terms of compatibility with the existing BFCP (a= t the moment I am assuming that any new implementation would interoperate w= ith the existing BFCP at least using TCP, but we have not had a discussion = on that) - identify the best way of presenting the material that works for people do= ing completely new implementations versus thus updating existing implementa= tions.=20 If we need to be able to identify differences there are a number of ways of= doing this including: 1) rely on the difference tools at tools.ietf.org an= d ensure that any WG output produces a true difference to the existing RFC,= 2) carry forward any differences to the existing RFC in an annex or append= ix (with the main body being the full text) and 3) keep the document solely= as a difference document. There is of course a fourth option of ignoring i= dentifying any differences at all. When ---- We also have options in terms of when we change the document to whatever fo= rmat we decide. We could do it immediately, or we could progress through th= e working group discussion and WGLC on the existing structure and only make= the change at, for example, publication request. Doing the latter would fo= cus the working group on changing only those bits that meet completing the = immediate charter of the working group, but may be more difficult to work w= ith. Doing the former may open up the working group to addressing a complet= e second edition, with any number of miscellaneous enhancements to the exis= ting BFCP.=20 RFC 4583 -------- The text we are working on also contains changes to RFC 4583 (currently own= ed by MMUSIC). I am assuming that we would probably want to keep the current scope split (= because MMUSIC need to review and agree any SDP changes), but would want to= handle a bis version in the same manner as the main BFCP document. However= the floor is open to discussion. Discussion ---------- I'd like to give a period of time to discussion of the best way forward on = the issues above, with the aim of identifying what options people do want o= n the table when I start a more formal consensus call in say a weeks time (= or however long it takes the discussion to complete).=20 So please put your views on the table as regard to what I written above, an= d also make sure that if you prefer something else, that you have identifie= d it. Also if you think any approach is a non-starter, now would be good to= identify it and we'll eliminate it from any consensus call (for reasons of= keeping the final call simpler). Regards Keith P.S. And just to repeat - none of this precludes raising any technical disc= ussion on the document (as separate threads please). From eckelcu@cisco.com Fri Jan 6 09:41:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B86E21F89B9 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:41:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.342 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LvXzfCWNAqiP for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3985B21F899E for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:41:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=5153; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1325871717; x=1327081317; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=4bX1az+ZClkGHRV+/dl2mZbqtWympiA/hp1YRD+kR0s=; b=LDQ/JsAEigstJYa3iwGKe60q3ITlQGQq2gp0ZMkqSvuwRdXW02jp2aR1 rmZOtLTB2/daaQbHfOSyMzJxTeNPHusG/mtZmPJoBE8z/CNmyH5TPNCt6 NJyWBrD2/MSwD2/rdQfkO9jVqrsxAxDBTYSHCmNSGr1pfFAbKzE7gDCIn Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAOgwB0+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbAA5CqxJgQWBcgEBAQMBAQEBDwEdCjQQBwQCAQgRBAEBCwYXAQYBJh8JCAEBBAESCBqHWAiYLgGeGohWglhjBIg5nyQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,469,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24156850" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2012 17:41:56 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q06HfpQm020480; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:41:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:41:54 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:41:53 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Documentation structure for bfcpbis Thread-Index: AczLtgn5GqdmUNTESd6FX8pDYG5HEwA4Y2Kw References: From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2012 17:41:54.0525 (UTC) FILETIME=[7ADD38D0:01CCCC9A] Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Documentation structure for bfcpbis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:41:58 -0000 (As an individual) Please see comments inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:27 AM > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: [bfcpbis] Documentation structure for bfcpbis >=20 > (As WG cochair) >=20 > I'd like to initiate some discussion on the documentation structure of > what we want produce in the bfcpbis working group. >=20 > There have been a couple of comments on rolling into the existing BFCP > RFC and we have at least a few options round here. Here at least are a > few thoughts: >=20 > What > ---- >=20 > As a working group we have at least a couple of issues to address: >=20 > - identify what we want in terms of compatibility with the existing > BFCP (at the moment I am assuming that any new implementation would > interoperate with the existing BFCP at least using TCP, but we have not > had a discussion on that) I agree. To date, we have not specified any changes to the RFC 4582 specification when using TCP. Based on discussion at IETF 82, we planned to change the BFCP protocol version number from 1 to 2 when using UDP per RFC 4582-bis, but there was no decision on what to do when using TCP. To date, I do not see any need to specify version 2 when using TCP. =20 > - identify the best way of presenting the material that works for > people doing completely new implementations versus thus updating > existing implementations. >=20 > If we need to be able to identify differences there are a number of > ways of doing this including: 1) rely on the difference tools at > tools.ietf.org and ensure that any WG output produces a true difference > to the existing RFC, 2) carry forward any differences to the existing > RFC in an annex or appendix (with the main body being the full text) > and 3) keep the document solely as a difference document. There is of > course a fourth option of ignoring identifying any differences at all. The changes to date have been specific to UDP, and I anticipate that any changes applicable to TCP will be minimal and not require any restructuring of the existing BFCP RFCs. As such, I think we will eventually be able to roll the set of differences captured in the WG draft into an updated version of RFC 4582. This being the case, option 1 is my preference. =20 > When > ---- >=20 > We also have options in terms of when we change the document to > whatever format we decide. We could do it immediately, or we could > progress through the working group discussion and WGLC on the existing > structure and only make the change at, for example, publication > request. Doing the latter would focus the working group on changing > only those bits that meet completing the immediate charter of the > working group, but may be more difficult to work with. Doing the former > may open up the working group to addressing a complete second edition, > with any number of miscellaneous enhancements to the existing BFCP. I think the sooner the better. Once the set of changes seems stable, perhaps based on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00, we could make the change in format. =20 =20 > RFC 4583 > -------- >=20 > The text we are working on also contains changes to RFC 4583 (currently > owned by MMUSIC). >=20 > I am assuming that we would probably want to keep the current scope > split (because MMUSIC need to review and agree any SDP changes), but > would want to handle a bis version in the same manner as the main BFCP > document. However the floor is open to discussion. I agree. Currently, the differences are captured in draft-sandbakken-dispatch-bfcp-udp-03, and will continue to be covered in draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00. This facilitates covering all the changes in one draft, but we should work with MMUSIC on relocating the SDP related changes into either a draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis or draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4583bis draft at the same time we switch draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis from being a difference based draft. Cheers, Charles =20 > Discussion > ---------- >=20 > I'd like to give a period of time to discussion of the best way forward > on the issues above, with the aim of identifying what options people do > want on the table when I start a more formal consensus call in say a > weeks time (or however long it takes the discussion to complete). >=20 > So please put your views on the table as regard to what I written > above, and also make sure that if you prefer something else, that you > have identified it. Also if you think any approach is a non-starter, > now would be good to identify it and we'll eliminate it from any > consensus call (for reasons of keeping the final call simpler). >=20 > Regards >=20 > Keith >=20 > P.S. And just to repeat - none of this precludes raising any technical > discussion on the document (as separate threads please). >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis From eckelcu@cisco.com Thu Jan 19 14:12:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8213021F86EC for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:12:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.324 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NXYEcnQ0vwnN for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D7121F86EA for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:12:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=374; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327011130; x=1328220730; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to; bh=t06t0Gr28rqAkHeBjx//ohvs/p/GOoHlwMTd+rcnNoY=; b=Rpd5PiHuMzQ48fIc9Unjf0Uotup2fAMxPsBrG/RlitnoYRLlGs9lBa/V XHc6Ez32zbyC2pnE3lXndXk9hb/wkRgbp+za6AhTcQ9nGJ9r3PEDzLYG2 7s+La8ni6KMPK+QHyOC6Xx+7gm5SkqL1WaEgxv6VCSZWgdA2N6wjmNb0N Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAB+UGE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABErHeBAIEFgXQBBBIBHQpRASoGGAdXAQQbGodimSiBJwGeNYh8AgMBAQIIAwUECgQKAwECMwIBAUICAgQBAwcBAQMNAQIDAQIBAQIBAgECAQEBAQI9DAoaMIFoKAQCAgsBCSwCDYI5YwSIO59H X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,538,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="26257244" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2012 22:12:10 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0JMCA32022338 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:12:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:12:09 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:11:58 -0800 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim Thread-Index: AczW91zS0D0p8TG6SeGXGzlgUEXj+A== From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2012 22:12:09.0820 (UTC) FILETIME=[634DA1C0:01CCD6F7] Subject: [bfcpbis] Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:12:11 -0000 (As WG Co-Chair) We are considering having a virtual interim meeting for BFCPBIS the latter part of February. The meeting is intended to be 2 hours via WebEx. Please indicate your availability via this Doodle Poll. Details regarding the agenda will be provided later. Follow this link to open the poll: http://www.doodle.com/nrz4rxzwytemp6hw Cheers, Charles From eckelcu@cisco.com Thu Jan 19 16:15:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9A121F85F3 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:15:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.34 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.259, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wm+cAAtyn20E for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442CC21F85E7 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:15:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=943; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327018507; x=1328228107; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to; bh=YOagbXr9H4fRiGdefLRVF6I7RGvy2KVmAcKicdQwvyw=; b=U6jE1DUbB8BnHtvc3moV1mUDue992rjF8A4MxALEJHwKih4+03WDbOf0 9brj230SCFY6ibvof2hKgb+ZGiJC3C3AqErXraJPrUjXvWbcWWwY8Xvz4 E7kE8dAypx+L0BlwKuPhhecppa8sGUpGQtHZy6eA/2L1IqSTtXQhqkTQC g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABexGE+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDrHl+gQWBcgEBAQQSAR0KSwYBCBEEAQELBhgHTgkBBAESCBqHYppZAZ44iTYBMwIBAUICAgQBAwcBAQMNAQIDAQIBAQIDAwEBAQECPQwKGjCBaHECgkZjBIg7n0c X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,538,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="26102093" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2012 00:15:07 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0K0F7tS022677 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:15:07 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:15:06 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:14:33 -0800 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim Thread-Index: AczW91zS0D0p8TG6SeGXGzlgUEXj+AAELEUQ From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2012 00:15:06.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[90540F40:01CCD708] Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:15:08 -0000 My apologies, the time zone information in the poll was not configured correctly. I have fixed it, but now you will need to use a new link. http://www.doodle.com/3dynaykv6egvn5a8 For those of you who already responded to the previous poll, thanks you, but please respond again to this one. Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:12 PM > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim >=20 > (As WG Co-Chair) >=20 > We are considering having a virtual interim meeting for BFCPBIS the > latter part of February. > The meeting is intended to be 2 hours via WebEx. > Please indicate your availability via this Doodle Poll. > Details regarding the agenda will be provided later. >=20 > Follow this link to open the poll: > http://www.doodle.com/nrz4rxzwytemp6hw (do not use this one) >=20 > Cheers, > Charles From 2mkristensen@gmail.com Tue Jan 24 06:53:07 2012 Return-Path: <2mkristensen@gmail.com> X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD4E21F8584 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dz3WamdWd3XD for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF1021F855D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so467580lah.31 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4XSy/E4Kjeobn1wAp48xSTKxJpzt9uDEURqsFQ56+hc=; b=HO9Wxg+g7U6soy1CHa9RTLmxAqbOhAcnY4XITptu/uqBJjdrOvqTSmutBcEtM06xxF al8q7jivfXuS1Q6oXCHXQtKLiRg23utgcN4z1lxEPzQZ2MtKSZAdv4/w6KLR7yLufgdn BiPIrWY7A291NjX6d2xjGpNeV4akUY6pITMVI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.114.74 with SMTP id je10mr5100689lab.40.1327416785515; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.37.131 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:53:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:53:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com> To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: BFCPbis WG , Tom Kristensen Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Documentation structure for bfcpbis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:53:08 -0000 Inline. On 06/01/2012, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote: > (As an individual) > Please see comments inline. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith) >> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:27 AM >> To: bfcpbis@ietf.org >> Subject: [bfcpbis] Documentation structure for bfcpbis >> >> (As WG cochair) >> >> I'd like to initiate some discussion on the documentation structure of >> what we want produce in the bfcpbis working group. >> >> There have been a couple of comments on rolling into the existing BFCP >> RFC and we have at least a few options round here. Here at least are a >> few thoughts: >> >> What >> ---- >> >> As a working group we have at least a couple of issues to address: >> >> - identify what we want in terms of compatibility with the > existing >> BFCP (at the moment I am assuming that any new implementation would >> interoperate with the existing BFCP at least using TCP, but we have > not >> had a discussion on that) > > I agree. To date, we have not specified any changes to the RFC 4582 > specification when using TCP. Based on discussion at IETF 82, we planned > to change the BFCP protocol version number from 1 to 2 when using UDP > per RFC 4582-bis, but there was no decision on what to do when using > TCP. To date, I do not see any need to specify version 2 when using TCP. Since no changes have been proposed for TCP/BFCP, incrementing the protocol version to indicate usage of RFC4582bis UDP/BFCP seems to be a good path forward. >> - identify the best way of presenting the material that works for >> people doing completely new implementations versus thus updating >> existing implementations. >> >> If we need to be able to identify differences there are a number of >> ways of doing this including: 1) rely on the difference tools at >> tools.ietf.org and ensure that any WG output produces a true > difference >> to the existing RFC, 2) carry forward any differences to the existing >> RFC in an annex or appendix (with the main body being the full text) >> and 3) keep the document solely as a difference document. There is of >> course a fourth option of ignoring identifying any differences at all. > > The changes to date have been specific to UDP, and I anticipate that any > changes applicable to TCP will be minimal and not require any > restructuring of the existing BFCP RFCs. As such, I think we will > eventually be able to roll the set of differences captured in the WG > draft into an updated version of RFC 4582. This being the case, option 1 > is my preference. This is my preference too. The draft is currently structured as a 'diff' for RFC4582bis and RFC4583bis. We may add a new section/subsection with a guide to what's new to assist people implementing the entire new RFCs or actually people wanting to add UDP/BFCP support to an existing TCP/BFCP implementation. >> When >> ---- >> >> We also have options in terms of when we change the document to >> whatever format we decide. We could do it immediately, or we could >> progress through the working group discussion and WGLC on the existing >> structure and only make the change at, for example, publication >> request. Doing the latter would focus the working group on changing >> only those bits that meet completing the immediate charter of the >> working group, but may be more difficult to work with. Doing the > former >> may open up the working group to addressing a complete second edition, >> with any number of miscellaneous enhancements to the existing BFCP. > > I think the sooner the better. Once the set of changes seems stable, > perhaps based on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00, we could make the > change in format. As requested by Keith Drage, the -00 version (submitted today) has only editorial changes and serves as a basis WG document for further work. I'd like the -01 version to be a proper RFC4582bis, i.e. merging in the changes and polishing the format. -- Tom [...] -- # Cisco | http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ ## tomkrist@cisco.com | http://www.tandberg.com ### | http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 24 07:46:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920CD21F8570; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:46:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRTO+L86YS47; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:46:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E2D21F851A; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:46:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120124154654.18807.10886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:46:55 -0800 Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org Subject: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:46:55 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol Bis Wo= rking Group of the IETF. Title : Revision of the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) for= use over an unreliable transport Author(s) : Tom Kristensen Charles Eckel Alfred E. Heggestad Mark K. Thompson Geir A. Sandbakken Eoin McLeod Filename : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2012-01-24 This draft describes how to extend the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) for use over an unreliable transport. It details the differences from the BFCP protocol definition document and the Session Description Protocol (SDP) format specified for BFCP streams. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00.txt From 2mkristensen@gmail.com Tue Jan 24 23:18:02 2012 Return-Path: <2mkristensen@gmail.com> X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CBE21F8619 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:18:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FbQy1tqbKUWF for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:18:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953E521F861B for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:18:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so981537lah.31 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:18:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZwqBPOE7SyBt8TUG7JgWPySV1cVM4wJ4GiSiqs3HX28=; b=UMHq6/hREXWCLR1l05gtHFzaCD8DqjNNnTaqAhriqDTjlLXuMzf24L28xVuauW05Qn KxDH3q591e1sFoWRjzhMMZsJU9xnajAxyatX/sVlrIlRb6kjC0EpfdnHhIxn8mq28Aru y7lFhMeuQF8Fgm9Dj57tX20I7pdO7Es53H9cU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.114.74 with SMTP id je10mr6565804lab.40.1327475880554; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:18:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.37.131 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:18:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120124154654.18807.10886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120124154654.18807.10886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:18:00 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com> To: bfcpbis@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Tom Kristensen Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:03 -0000 On 24/01/2012, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol > Bis Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Revision of the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) for > use over an unreliable transport > Author(s) : Tom Kristensen > Charles Eckel > Alfred E. Heggestad > Mark K. Thompson > Geir A. Sandbakken > Eoin McLeod > Filename : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-00.txt > Pages : 33 > Date : 2012-01-24 > > This draft describes how to extend the Binary Floor Control Protocol > (BFCP) for use over an unreliable transport. It details the > differences from the BFCP protocol definition document and the > Session Description Protocol (SDP) format specified for BFCP streams. This draft was submitted on chairs' request in order to populate the BFCPbis status page http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfcpbis/, and to be used as a starting point for the unsolved issues. A change history is found in Appendix A: Please, bring any new issues to be discussed or resolved to the list sooner than later. A brief overview of the notable known future work is found in Section 7: -- Tom -- # Cisco | http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ ## tomkrist@cisco.com | http://www.tandberg.com ### | http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ From eckelcu@cisco.com Fri Jan 27 09:36:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EBF21F861A for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:36:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b+hijpAoseGS for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:36:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B87B21F860B for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:36:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=1501; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327685793; x=1328895393; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=E2PnddfBgGn5MH8aGmUeZlTYAvVgzsCGnckL2J6FxNg=; b=HP6LcI2uYwQs8e27IeBIJtC4ZsNCJmxxbjwaFn5acV85Wmzhzri7BYSK GT94GjICjZpC7FRpcn3A6eV98XQd/USRXNAYzGq6dMrISbXqf1l/rn8l1 F4VSaw3poJAf3jOoIviliUini/oX1ygS+AuozEYX+e+7i2PWy6Jhb9cew A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALjfIk+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDrlGBBYFyAQEBBBIBHQpLBAIBGQQBAQsGGAYBTggBAQQTCBqHYplnAZ5EiH4RJjAGBQQCAQQEBgODAwUPCgWBEQwOAgcCDoI5YwSIP59J X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,581,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="27502163" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2012 17:36:32 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0RHaWQ4024183 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:36:32 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:36:32 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:36:31 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll Closing Jan 31 (Was: RE: Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim) Thread-Index: AczW91zS0D0p8TG6SeGXGzlgUEXj+AAELEUQAYRdPiA= References: From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2012 17:36:32.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[356B1480:01CCDD1A] Subject: [bfcpbis] Poll Closing Jan 31 (Was: RE: Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim) X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:36:34 -0000 (As WG Co-Chair) Thanks to those of you who have already responded. For those who have not, this is to inform you the poll will close Tuesday, January 31. Once again, the correct link is to access the poll is: http://www.doodle.com/3dynaykv6egvn5a8 Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:15 PM > To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu); bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim >=20 > My apologies, the time zone information in the poll was not configured > correctly. I have fixed it, but now you will need to use a new link. >=20 > http://www.doodle.com/3dynaykv6egvn5a8 >=20 > For those of you who already responded to the previous poll, thanks > you, but please respond again to this one. >=20 > Cheers, > Charles >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:12 PM > > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > > Subject: Poll for dates for bfcpbis virtual interim > > > > (As WG Co-Chair) > > > > We are considering having a virtual interim meeting for BFCPBIS the > > latter part of February. > > The meeting is intended to be 2 hours via WebEx. > > Please indicate your availability via this Doodle Poll. > > Details regarding the agenda will be provided later. > > > > Follow this link to open the poll: > > http://www.doodle.com/nrz4rxzwytemp6hw (do not use this one) > > > > Cheers, > > Charles