From nobody Tue May 19 01:29:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1D11A1A8F for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 01:29:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.768 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cXGMuLZrr_7h for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 01:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079FA1A1A72 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 01:29:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1432024162; x=1463560162; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to:from:subject: cc; bh=xls/FN+4BSSUMhYIwJbiNVfxna9fUmNbnqHhpVgccms=; b=MaE+5Mwtwm3dnLcMYHMoSJRLX5QwltZK4slTt8/Oe6Euc4NmAZGmYD0I BDzl8KJvqce8azmj2UkiwTtHZDXUCIBbh5ozvZyhRFbiiThqEtUXcjLNf vv9A03xz3b9VK6mEeUQHmsGDTr4raRHufglijXMzElOuR/+2bjNARSIwZ Q=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7805"; a="211464949" Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 May 2015 01:29:20 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,456,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="974575629" Received: from plus.qualcomm.com ([10.52.255.8]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 May 2015 01:29:19 -0700 Received: from ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com (ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com [172.30.46.16]) by plus.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id t4J8TIkG032025; Tue, 19 May 2015 01:29:18 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,456,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="476364121" X-ojodefuego: yes Received: from unknown (HELO [10.199.2.66]) ([10.64.227.40]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2015 01:29:15 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 18:09:53 -0700 To: Ben Campbell From: Randall Gellens Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, Barry Leiba Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 08:29:25 -0000 Hi Ben and Barry, Where are we with SLIM? Are you waiting on anything from me? Are we ready to charter the WG, or schedule a virtual BoF? At 7:15 PM -0700 4/14/15, Randall Gellens wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2015, at 2:39, Randall Gellens wrote: >> >>>> I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be >>>> useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input >>>> to >>>> such a BOF. >>> >>> Hi Ben, >>> >>> In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both >>> drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered >>> advantages and none offered any real disadvantages. Someone mentioned >>> that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested >>> in >>> one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a >>> problem >>> (it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not >>> the >>> case here). >> >> I recall mentioning a couple: >> >> -- There is controversy about the real-time solution. This can get in >> the way of getting less controversial deliverables done. (Someone >> mentioned there is also controversy on the non-real-time solution. IMO, >> that makes things worse, not better.) >> >> -- Experience has shown that keeping working group scopes as small as >> reasonably possible increases the odds of success. Putting two separate >> problems together in the same working group runs counter to that, so my >> personal preference is to avoid it unless the connection between the >> items is clear. >> >> However, [see next comment] >> >>> We already know that some participants are interested in >>> both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one >>> are >>> able to offer constructive suggestions for the other. So, I don't see >>> any >>> reason to not move forward. If there are other changes you'd like to >>> see, >>> we can talk about them. >> >> I don't object to moving forward with a combined proposal for the >> virtual BoF. We can see what people have to say about the combination in >> the BoF. >> >> (I have had multiple people express skepticism about the combination [I >> think even some on the SLIM list], but I don't know if they will >> attend.) > > > Hi Ben, > > Being skeptical of the advantages is fine; I still haven't seen any reason > why doing both will be an actual problem. Given how small the two drafts > are, I don't see that controversy over one will hinder the other. Both > drafts have attracted some controversy, but certainly the real-time one > has more. > > > >>>> On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My >>>>> recollection >>>>> of >>>>> the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you >>>>> expecting a >>>>> revised proposed charter? >>>>> >>>>>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting >>>>>> in >>>>>> Dallas? >>>>>> >>>>>> Barry >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not >>>>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>>>>>> tags? >>>>>>>>>> Do > >>>>>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> community? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>>>>>> (namely >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>>>>>> comment >>>>>>>>> (quoted above)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>>>>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>>>>>> areas, >>>>>>> while >>>>>>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>>>>>> needed >>>>>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the two problems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>>>>>> aspects of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I >>>>>>> see >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> benefit and no harm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Randall Gellens >>>>>>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>>>>>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>>>>>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>> >> -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking --H. L. Mencken From nobody Tue May 19 09:51:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C201AC3B5 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:51:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NuQIVIyvs7zg for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A06A1A92B4 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iebgx4 with SMTP id gx4so18591753ieb.0 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=S2SrM2UanabeQSylijGyhfhr/MEycoT4r3e0I+arqWM=; b=lKvM9Ao1K4cTrdWEtGNMW0WoNsTSYnivxob4Okzv+0v45BaNCHMVEkF3XsIIXydvON MBAFxD7vVv42Av1b0YwwqGj2aNXWOYq1qShYMtFhK0SANFMrKw/zPRfxVptlOsRE/VpG GSDkaYJIDyhJUH6qVaxZzlTDPFj5SVw4q0FlcFmdFo5E0LCZTuRgH6w/W89QlpuxS0AH 6P4HEYzfC31deMW2uWBuoVeM1pAoM2dAHdtGiidJ3zbCFr88WvnAezUNzqSREl0zUBxn 7y0ro8B7TnOwlWgftkr463ByCyQBn7Gaph3LsXRtvuCOQDUS/PyEnagwBVey44ue4Yd4 5d6A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.13.67 with SMTP id f3mr22613942igc.12.1432054274565; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.3.195 with HTTP; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:51:14 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8fpXlVBXd98KWcVXN4FgTfBtvIU Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Randall Gellens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, Ben Campbell , Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:51:17 -0000 > Where are we with SLIM? Are you waiting on anything from me? Are we ready > to charter the WG, or schedule a virtual BoF? I believe we were waiting for you and other proponents to schedule the virtual BoF we talked about, yes. Barry > At 7:15 PM -0700 4/14/15, Randall Gellens wrote: > >> > On 13 Apr 2015, at 2:39, Randall Gellens wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be >>>>> useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input >>>>> to >>>>> such a BOF. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Ben, >>>> >>>> In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both >>>> drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered >>>> advantages and none offered any real disadvantages. Someone mentioned >>>> that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested >>>> in >>>> one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a >>>> problem >>>> (it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not >>>> the >>>> case here). >>> >>> >>> I recall mentioning a couple: >>> >>> -- There is controversy about the real-time solution. This can get in >>> the way of getting less controversial deliverables done. (Someone >>> mentioned there is also controversy on the non-real-time solution. IMO, >>> that makes things worse, not better.) >>> >>> -- Experience has shown that keeping working group scopes as small as >>> reasonably possible increases the odds of success. Putting two separate >>> problems together in the same working group runs counter to that, so my >>> personal preference is to avoid it unless the connection between the >>> items is clear. >>> >>> However, [see next comment] >>> >>>> We already know that some participants are interested in >>>> both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one >>>> are >>>> able to offer constructive suggestions for the other. So, I don't see >>>> any >>>> reason to not move forward. If there are other changes you'd like to >>>> see, >>>> we can talk about them. >>> >>> >>> I don't object to moving forward with a combined proposal for the >>> virtual BoF. We can see what people have to say about the combination in >>> the BoF. >>> >>> (I have had multiple people express skepticism about the combination [I >>> think even some on the SLIM list], but I don't know if they will >>> attend.) >> >> >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> Being skeptical of the advantages is fine; I still haven't seen any >> reason >> why doing both will be an actual problem. Given how small the two drafts >> are, I don't see that controversy over one will hinder the other. Both >> drafts have attracted some controversy, but certainly the real-time one >> has more. >> >> >> >>>>> On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My >>>>>> recollection >>>>>> of >>>>>> the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you >>>>>> expecting a >>>>>> revised proposed charter? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> Dallas? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Barry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not >>>>>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>>>>>>> tags? >>>>>>>>>>> Do >> >> >>>>>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>>> community? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>>>>>>> (namely >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>>>>>>> comment >>>>>>>>>> (quoted above)? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>>>>>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>>>>>>> areas, >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>>>>>>> needed >>>>>>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the two problems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>>>>>>> aspects of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I >>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> benefit and no harm. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Randall Gellens >>>>>>>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>>>>>>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>>>>>>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > > > -- > Randall Gellens > Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only > -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- > Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking > --H. L. Mencken From nobody Tue May 19 16:13:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916221B3523 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 16:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CaqlLkpHfF75 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 16:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com (sabertooth02.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20DA51B3507 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 16:13:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1432077232; x=1463613232; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to:from:subject: cc:mime-version; bh=TenRLT0QUkvMBDE0ViHJwZNeMn5edlJuA8JVq4F7Xcw=; b=rQOR1+81tKC2LkgPoAAf281oabcUUXG+SBxAJFFjKWZsW5IJO6Y5XL1m +HMqt47PzDQFFBWAKC8RnlsUptIJExxL5szNclJG+D8F16RpbwgQPGDDj oFKtgfibpoKrAP0F1yhidKRIbCs1VQ6GfLRjVMc1mtRjnHhu2OZ5GjIuk Q=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7806"; a="90343078" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by sabertooth02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 May 2015 16:13:51 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,460,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="921709029" Received: from nasanexm02f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.87]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 19 May 2015 16:13:50 -0700 Received: from [10.199.2.66] (10.80.80.8) by nasanexm02f.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Tue, 19 May 2015 16:13:48 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:13:45 -0700 To: Barry Leiba , Randall Gellens From: Randall Gellens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) To nasanexm02f.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.87) Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, Ben Campbell , Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 23:13:55 -0000 Hi Barry, My apologies, I didn't realize you were waiting on me to do this. What's the earliest we can schedule it? At 5:51 PM +0100 5/19/15, Barry Leiba wrote: > > Where are we with SLIM? Are you waiting on anything from me? > Are we ready >> to charter the WG, or schedule a virtual BoF? > > I believe we were waiting for you and other proponents to schedule the > virtual BoF we talked about, yes. > > Barry > >> At 7:15 PM -0700 4/14/15, Randall Gellens wrote: >> >>> > On 13 Apr 2015, at 2:39, Randall Gellens wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I will leave a definitive answer to Barry, but it would probably be >>>>>> useful to have your latest thinking in terms of a charter as an input >>>>>> to >>>>>> such a BOF. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>> >>>>> In Dallas we talked about the issue of doing both problem areas (both >>>>> drafts) in one WG, and my recollection is that several people offered >>>>> advantages and none offered any real disadvantages. Someone mentioned >>>>> that it was possible that some WG participate might only be interested >>>>> in >>>>> one or the other, but that's common in all WGs, and isn't really a >>>>> problem >>>>> (it might be for some very large WGs with lots of work but that's not >>>>> the >>>>> case here). >>>> >>>> >>>> I recall mentioning a couple: >>>> >>>> -- There is controversy about the real-time solution. This can get in >>>> the way of getting less controversial deliverables done. (Someone >>>> mentioned there is also controversy on the non-real-time solution. IMO, >>>> that makes things worse, not better.) >>>> >>>> -- Experience has shown that keeping working group scopes as small as >>>> reasonably possible increases the odds of success. Putting two separate >>>> problems together in the same working group runs counter to that, so my >>>> personal preference is to avoid it unless the connection between the >>>> items is clear. >>>> >>>> However, [see next comment] >>>> >>>>> We already know that some participants are interested in >>>>> both, and we've seen already that some whose primary interest is one >>>>> are >>>>> able to offer constructive suggestions for the other. So, I don't see >>>>> any >>>>> reason to not move forward. If there are other changes you'd like to >>>>> see, >>>>> we can talk about them. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't object to moving forward with a combined proposal for the >>>> virtual BoF. We can see what people have to say about the combination in >>>> the BoF. >>>> >>>> (I have had multiple people express skepticism about the combination [I >>>> think even some on the SLIM list], but I don't know if they will >>>> attend.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Ben, >>> >>> Being skeptical of the advantages is fine; I still haven't seen any >>> reason >>> why doing both will be an actual problem. Given how small the two drafts >>> are, I don't see that controversy over one will hinder the other. Both >>> drafts have attracted some controversy, but certainly the real-time one >>> has more. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> On 12 Apr 2015, at 3:18, Randall Gellens wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was just thinking of asking you and Ben about this. My >>>>>>> recollection >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the meeting is that the next step was a virtual BOF. Were you >>>>>>> expecting a >>>>>>> revised proposed charter? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where are we with the charter discussion, after the lunch meeting >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> Dallas? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Barry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Randall Gellens >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At 10:32 AM -0400 3/18/15, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/15 3:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't find the charter text motivating the linkage between > >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> mail >>>>>>>>>>>> problem and the real-time problem very convincing. I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong; just that it hasn't convinced me. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The text suggests a single work group to reinforce commonality >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> solutions. That seems backwards to me; I'd like to see more on >>>>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>>>> people think the problems benefit from a common solution. Do >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>> there will be mechanism in common, beyond the use of language >>>>>>>>>>>> tags? >>>>>>>>>>>> Do >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> you see a common implementor community? A common protocol >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>>>> community? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi SLIM list participants: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I see that one of my comments has generated some discussion >>>>>>>>>>> (namely >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> SIP vs SDP discussion.) Does anyone have thoughts on my other >>>>>>>>>>> comment >>>>>>>>>>> (quoted above)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't see much commonality. I have suspicion that there will be >>>>>>>>>> distinct bodies of people interested in working on these two >>>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are some people who are only interested in one of the two >>>>>>>>> areas, >>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>> others are interested in both. Obviously, different solutions are >>>>>>>>> needed >>>>>>>>> for the two problem spaces, and we have two drafts that each solve >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the two problems. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The work could be done in two groups, but given that both are >>>>>>>>> aspects of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> basic issue of facilitating communication among people who may use >>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>> languages, it also makes sense to do them in the same group. I >>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> benefit and no harm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Randall Gellens >>>>>>>>> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself >>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >>>>>>>>> The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which >>>>>>>>> there is no good evidence either way. --Bertrand Russell >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>>>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> SLIM mailing list >>>>>>> SLIM@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Randall Gellens >> Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only >> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- >> Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking >> --H. L. Mencken > > _______________________________________________ > SLIM mailing list > SLIM@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken From nobody Thu May 21 11:05:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584661A079D for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:05:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.422 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HrEcw-UcvYo3 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E9BA1A036F for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbsb11 with SMTP id sb11so14953420igb.0 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wQwkqA+3UjqZBqpUHB2U2S0ufszmPN+ZVr1gnxKKCpw=; b=AKQ6SLBon5pp66llYPyW1SbtFqDQaSSFHi3B+5GQXluMQnTBJKM3idhX6qKDRLSKKT xkil8D27EaNKA8ckxGmeEoL9xEGg7lHQmJGDpkvdJ1sspPyi6k1/GRhPBWQZT1HPFJph Dd180HQMFPfLPFCDtMWqtQPm1iQQd6lQpCSkR/3pUH8zxm4Gp2hfJ1gF87CpUkooF8Un kcozxbLkxKDyLhNgqAUU5KQIvCQnAHP4Jz5em8lkqiMECqVVP0tyTzTLSNBCxQu4zIA5 xHZT7zsC4JF9VfCV+cWLUDLZmbWSCQj9Eq9fY2g4kjOaWXtHo/xbzb/RhsbzSdnP/WVO JW4A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.12.34 with SMTP id w34mr1268485ioi.10.1432231504880; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.156.1 with HTTP; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0A4E9A96-56C9-4D15-81AE-5D8285654080@nostrum.com> <6A925F93-EDCD-48EE-8D71-67DA93AED066@nostrum.com> <55098C6C.50003@alum.mit.edu> <97d0182292caab270c9a7744d3edcc0d.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <8ffbc193110e555a8457e11c54f3f9b6.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> <0c63f1743acfabf479af7fe8063e5ffd.squirrel@ocean.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:05:04 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LgPQw_tykuJSLrMZQsLtcJrCrW8 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Randall Gellens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, Ben Campbell , Pete Resnick , Randall Gellens Subject: Re: [Slim] Comments on proposed SLIM charter X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:05:06 -0000 > My apologies, I didn't realize you were waiting on me to do this. What's the > earliest we can schedule it? I think the key point is to make sure the right people are there. We can be informal about it, and consider it a virtual "bar BoF" -- I think everyone should be invited, and you should use your judgment on lead time. (My own judgment would be that setting it up now for late June ought to be about right.) Barry From nobody Thu May 28 13:08:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D645F1A88C3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:08:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: <8BK_r40Pjdgc> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8BK_r40Pjdgc for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C821A1C02 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:08:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1432843717; x=1464379717; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject; bh=oC2qiSv5Dxf7cAHJ+R8k5pWkztZh02709IVGuCcb9G0=; b=aYQmUgwKcV6Pfn0A07xpxW5aIA++vYqFOqu8Jw+GAYEj/xtaX545cHHI DhOO0pyzgomcjcsopaiWqypZkTptN8tF7bKiKD2/qW6aN+1qoSUPKumq8 LynrDtyWR2iYDIVQIyT9BaK3KV00seWBunbQJnkABSfupdfHGzAum8QVe s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7815"; a="120638255" Received: from ironmsg02-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 May 2015 13:08:20 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,513,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="455629391" Received: from plus.qualcomm.com ([10.52.255.8]) by ironmsg02-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 May 2015 13:08:19 -0700 Received: from Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com (ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com [172.30.48.18]) by plus.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id t4SK8I57026048; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:08:18 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,513,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="921553934" X-ojodefuego: yes Received: from myvpn-l-00214.ras.qualcomm.com (HELO [99.111.97.136]) ([10.64.133.249]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 28 May 2015 13:08:16 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:08:15 -0700 To: slim@ietf.org From: Randall Gellens Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 Archived-At: Subject: [Slim] Virtual Bar-BoF for SLIM X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:08:39 -0000 Hi SLIMmers, I've creatd a Doodle poll to set a time and date for a virtual Bar-BoF for SLIM. To follow up on the SLIM face-to-face discussion in Dallas, this virtual bar-BoF provides an opportunity for further discussion with a goal of gaining consensus on moving forward with a charter. In particular: (1) Are there objections to the current proposed charter wording, or is it acceptable? (2) Are there objections to moving forward on this basis? Please participate in the Doodle poll to select the time/date, and then in the virtual Bar-BoF. http://doodle.com/ryuai9ieqxi7hue2 -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. --George Bernard Shaw From nobody Sun May 31 20:38:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8581B2A7A for ; Sun, 31 May 2015 20:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UbahowtTs7gp for ; Sun, 31 May 2015 20:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cserver5.myshophosting.com (cserver5.myshophosting.com [175.107.161.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E885A1B2A60 for ; Sun, 31 May 2015 20:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp118-209-189-217.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net ([118.209.189.217]:52171 helo=[192.168.1.22]) by cserver5.myshophosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1YzGXz-000ptf-Gv for slim@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:37:55 +1000 Message-ID: <556BD392.2080706@nteczone.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:37:54 +1000 From: Christian Groves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: slim@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cserver5.myshophosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - nteczone.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cserver5.myshophosting.com: authenticated_id: christian.groves@nteczone.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Slim] Virtual Bar-BoF for SLIM X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 03:37:59 -0000 Hello Randall, I won't be able to make the virtual Bar-BoF. My previous comments have been addressed in the charter so I have no objections to moving forward. The only thing is that the goal and milestones look quite ambitious. Regards, Christian On 29/05/2015 6:08 AM, Randall Gellens wrote: > Hi SLIMmers, > > I've creatd a Doodle poll to set a time and date for a virtual Bar-BoF > for SLIM. > > To follow up on the SLIM face-to-face discussion in Dallas, this > virtual bar-BoF provides an opportunity for further discussion with a > goal of gaining consensus on moving forward with a charter. > > In particular: > (1) Are there objections to the current proposed charter wording, > or is it acceptable? > (2) Are there objections to moving forward on this basis? > > Please participate in the Doodle poll to select the time/date, and > then in the virtual Bar-BoF. > > http://doodle.com/ryuai9ieqxi7hue2 >