Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-10

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 19:05:04 +0100

Nobody responded to this, but considering the low level of participation, as usual … I don’t think there is a way to measure interest.

Meanwhile, as the document expired, and I wanted to include two new items (the audio requirements and the need for UPS in certain conditions, not just for the main routers), I’ve published yesterday a new version:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-network-requirements/?include_text=1

I will see if there are new inputs and will talk with the NOC in London, and if there is not a “WG” for this work, we will see how to proceed, or even individual submission.

Regards,

Jordi

De: Mtgvenue <[email-masked]> en nombre de Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Fecha: miércoles, 24 de enero de 2018, 19:26
Para: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
CC: <[email-masked]>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Mtgvenue] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-10

On 19 Jan 2018, at 10:30, Alissa Cooper wrote:

To be clear, it’s up to the WG to decide what to work on (within the bounds of the charter), and it’s up to the IETF community to decide what documents have consensus. My personal view is that the detailed technical requirements of the meeting network are better articulated by the NOC with community review, and are likely to change more frequently than the RFC update cycle would allow. (Note that we’re coming up on the two-year mark since the work on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process began). But my personal view isn’t terribly relevant here. If there is consensus in the WG, as judged by the chairs, to adopt an additional work item, I will happily occupy my spot in the rough.

This looks to be in part a bit of a "chair-fail". From the minutes of our last f2f:

·         not in charter. new charter?

o    if this becomes a requirement then it goes too far

·         Should the group ask a for a charter change?

·         'Does this need the efforts of a whole working group; or the NOC

o    Show of hands in people interested - very few

·         AD not a recharter - just an edit of a milestone

·         Chair: will post summary of discussion to list, ask who wants to work on it and whether they are willing to work with Jordi to do it.

My read of the discussion was that there was little interest in the room for the WG to take this up as a work item, but that if a group of people (presumably including Jordi) wanted to work this into a document and propose it as a WG document, that would be OK. Where I failed was that last point: To post to the list and see if anyone else was willing to work with Jordi on this document. I think I presumed that the posting of the minutes would be sufficient, but it really isn't.

So, Jordi, is this a formal enough request to ask for interest in working on the document, or should I post a separate message?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

_______________________________________________ Mtgvenue mailing list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue 

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.