From nobody Mon Aug 29 13:43:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D4712D88F; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147250339912.18990.12855113869919960462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:43:19 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: urn@ietf.org, urnbis-chairs@ietf.org, barryleiba@gmail.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm Subject: [urn] urnbis - Not having a session at IETF 97 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:43:19 -0000 Barry Leiba, a chair of the urnbis working group, indicated that the urnbis working group does not plan to hold a session at IETF 97. This message was generated and sent by the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. From nobody Mon Aug 29 14:37:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D26126FDC for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:37:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 GxPmkousRqDH for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9865C12D0B9 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (unknown [98.245.40.52]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 441E4E81E0; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:40:16 -0600 (MDT) To: urn@ietf.org References: <147250339912.18990.12855113869919960462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <35d16afb-b9e6-3b5c-25a8-a5dd686110ef@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:37:27 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <147250339912.18990.12855113869919960462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [urn] urnbis - Not having a session at IETF 97 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:37:39 -0000 BTW I am working to prepare an updated I-D for my co-author's review by next Monday. On 8/29/16 2:43 PM, "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool" wrote: > > > Barry Leiba, a chair of the urnbis working group, indicated that the urnbis working group does not plan to hold a session at IETF 97. > > This message was generated and sent by the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. > > > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn > From nobody Mon Aug 29 19:12:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E16F12D0C2 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:12:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 B7-8HL1O2Ypx for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D614E12D0BC for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [75.83.2.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E797650A85 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:12:47 -0400 (EDT) To: urn@ietf.org References: <147250339912.18990.12855113869919960462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Sean Leonard Message-ID: <464c7872-c5fc-0a1e-54be-6bcf9fb3653c@seantek.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:12:52 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <147250339912.18990.12855113869919960462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [urn] urnbis - Not having a session at IETF 97 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 02:12:50 -0000 I would respectfully request that we have *some* kind of organized meeting thing, if for no other reason than to push this along... Sean On 8/29/2016 1:43 PM, "IETF Meeting Session Request Tool" wrote: > > Barry Leiba, a chair of the urnbis working group, indicated that the urnbis working group does not plan to hold a session at IETF 97. > > This message was generated and sent by the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. > > > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn From nobody Tue Aug 30 13:24:38 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A90D12D75A for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 7fQIVk2AEzDr for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E904A12D61D for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1bepaE-0001Vc-EA; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:24:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:24:29 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Sean Leonard , urn@ietf.org Message-ID: <6AADA51C6C4E13184A96E8B3@JcK-HP8200> In-Reply-To: <464c7872-c5fc-0a1e-54be-6bcf9fb3653c@seantek.com> References: <147250339912.18990.12855113869919960462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <464c7872-c5fc-0a1e-54be-6bcf9fb3653c@seantek.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [urn] urnbis - Not having a session at IETF 97 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:24:37 -0000 --On Monday, August 29, 2016 19:12 -0700 Sean Leonard wrote: > I would respectfully request that we have *some* kind of > organized meeting thing, if for no other reason than to push > this along... Sean, Speaking for myself only (Barry's reasoning may be different), we've got too many key people who are not reliably attending f2f IETF meetings to make a meeting in Seoul useful. That "probably won't be in Seoul" list includes, for example, all three of the present set of document editors. Now, if Peter gets a draft to me early next week and I don't need to travel them (50-50 chance at this point), the WG should see a new version of 2141bis late next week or soon thereafter. Depending on how the subsequent discussion goes, it might be appropriate to schedule an other virtual interim, to move into WG LC or some other prep process for IETF LC, or to decide there really isn't enough interest to finish things up. None of those scenarios make a meeting in Seoul useful. john From nobody Tue Aug 30 13:27:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800D212D61D for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:27:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 TL1bcRA0RYeI for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EDB512D80F for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [75.83.2.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C789850A85; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:27:19 -0400 (EDT) To: John C Klensin , urn@ietf.org References: <147250339912.18990.12855113869919960462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <464c7872-c5fc-0a1e-54be-6bcf9fb3653c@seantek.com> <6AADA51C6C4E13184A96E8B3@JcK-HP8200> From: Sean Leonard Message-ID: <7a737a4e-8a3a-86a5-b6b8-7451a3b5f23d@seantek.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:27:25 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6AADA51C6C4E13184A96E8B3@JcK-HP8200> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [urn] urnbis - Not having a session at IETF 97 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:27:27 -0000 On 8/30/2016 1:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Monday, August 29, 2016 19:12 -0700 Sean Leonard > wrote: > >> I would respectfully request that we have *some* kind of >> organized meeting thing, if for no other reason than to push >> this along... > Sean, > > Speaking for myself only (Barry's reasoning may be different), > we've got too many key people who are not reliably attending f2f > IETF meetings to make a meeting in Seoul useful. That "probably > won't be in Seoul" list includes, for example, all three of the > present set of document editors. > > Now, if Peter gets a draft to me early next week and I don't > need to travel them (50-50 chance at this point), the WG should > see a new version of 2141bis late next week or soon thereafter. > Depending on how the subsequent discussion goes, it might be > appropriate to schedule an other virtual interim, to move into > WG LC or some other prep process for IETF LC, or to decide there > really isn't enough interest to finish things up. None of those > scenarios make a meeting in Seoul useful. Virtual interim would be fine. (As would be a "virtual interim" "during" Seoul...assuming no conflicts, = which would have to be managed. Presumably a virtual interim would be=20 better if it's not during an f2f meeting, for said conflicts reasons.) Sean