Al Morton | 8 Oct 16:59 2009
Picon

Re: Planning for an Interim Meeting

As an Update to the Working Group, we are now
looking at the fourth week of October,
on 26 Monday, 27 Tuesday or 30 Friday,
as dates for the Interim meeting.

I still need to hear from some authors, and any
participants who have a strong preference.

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

At 10:28 AM 9/21/2009, Al Morton wrote:
>BMWG,
>
>As discussed at the last session in Stockholm, both
>our AD-Advisor Ron and I have schedule conflicts with
>IETF-76 week, and are unable to travel to the meeting.
>We mentioned that BMWG could have an Interim meeting to
>progress work, likely a 2 hour conference call supported by
>a document conference system, such as webex.
>
>The weeks between IETF meetings are rapidly slipping by, and I
>want to investigate the possibility of a meeting during
>the 3rd week of October, on 19 Monday, 20 Tuesday or 23 Friday.
>The time would need to be friendly to both Europe and US
>(we don't have any active participants from other zones, AFAIK)
>so that means it would start at about 11AM US Eastern time,
>+/1 an hour or so.
>
(Continue reading)

Jan Novak (janovak | 9 Oct 13:18 2009
Picon

Re: Planning for an Interim Meeting

Hi Al,

I have just submitted a new IP Flow monitoring draft
version.
It addresses comments/discussions from the Stockholm meeting and
finalises
the changes towards the subject clarity (hopefully) which did
not get into the draft in time for the last meeting.

Tx, Jan

The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak
succumb young .... and the strong envy them.

                                 Dr. Johnson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Al
> Morton
> Sent: 21 September 2009 15:28
> To: bmwg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [bmwg] Planning for an Interim Meeting
> 
> BMWG,
> 
> As discussed at the last session in Stockholm, both
> our AD-Advisor Ron and I have schedule conflicts with
> IETF-76 week, and are unable to travel to the meeting.
> We mentioned that BMWG could have an Interim meeting to
(Continue reading)

Al Morton | 16 Oct 17:11 2009
Picon

Re: Planning for an Interim Meeting

BMWG,

While we finalize the conference-oriented details
for the Interim meeting, I want to communicate the
consensus on the DATE, with the time being constrained
by the time zones involved. (There are a few who could not
make this date, but it seems to be the best for most).

UTC (GMT)  Friday, October 30, 2009 at 13:30:00 to 16:00:00
start times in
Geneva (Switzerland)    Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:30:00 PM  UTC+1 hour CET
New York (U.S.A.)       Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:30:00 AM  UTC-4 hours EDT
San Francisco (U.S.A.)  Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:30:00 AM  UTC-7 hours PDT
Note that the USA will still be observing Daylight Savings Time,
while Europe and many other locations be on Standard Time.

The meeting will include a 30 minute warm-up, because we anticipate
the ability to use webex for this conference in addition to an
audio bridge, and it may take time to get everyone on-board.
Then we will have a full two hours to discuss drafts
and resolve comments.

So far, we have proposals to discuss the following drafts,
some of which are available now, and others which are planned
to be complete by the revised draft deadline of Oct 26th:

NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL: BENCHMARKS FOR DATA CENTER BRIDGING DEVICES
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-player-dcb-benchmarking-00.txt

IP Flow Information Accounting and Export Benchmarking Methodology
(Continue reading)

IESG Secretary | 16 Oct 21:05 2009
Picon

BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

As indicated at the Stockholm IETF's BMWG meeting, BMWG will
be using PSTN conferencing (and probably webex) for the following
interim meeting to advance some specific current work items and
discuss new work proposals.

UTC (GMT) Friday, October 30, 2009 at 13:30:00 to 16:00:00
start times in
Geneva (Switzerland) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:30:00 PM UTC+1 hour CET
New York (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:30:00 AM UTC-4 hours EDT
San Francisco (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7 hours PDT
Note that the USA will still be observing Daylight Savings Time,
while Europe and many other locations be on Standard Time.

See the BMWG Archive for more information, specifically:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02078.html

Per http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates.html#76, the cut-off
for revised I-Ds is October 26.

Agenda, Slides, (WebEx URL) and PSTN dial-in information will be
published
on BMWG's supplementary web page:
http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/
Ron Bonica | 16 Oct 22:23 2009
Picon

Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

James,

The following IESG statement contains rules for interim meetings:

- http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html

I don't see anything in the rules constraining the amount of time
between the interim meeting and the actual IETF meeting. Is there some
other guideline of which I am not aware?

                                Ron

James M. Polk wrote:
> fair - I was off 4 days, and sit corrected.
> 
> however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is awfully 
> close, don't you think?
> 
> James
> 
> At 02:44 PM 10/16/2009, Dave Thaler wrote:
>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
>> "Conference calls and jabber sessions must be announced at least
>> two weeks prior to the call or session, and the agenda must be
>> published at least one week before call or session"
>>
>> The quoted text at bottom announces a meeting 2 weeks from today,
>> so it seems to meet the two weeks notice requirement to me.
>>
>> -Dave
(Continue reading)

Al Morton | 16 Oct 22:42 2009
Picon

Re: Planning for an Interim Meeting

BMWG,

The IETF-wide announcement of our interim meeting has prompted some discussion
on the wg chairs and IAB lists, where several folks who are not
subscribed to bmwg <at> ietf.org cross-posted their comments.

As list moderator, I am about to approve all messages in the spirit of
open communications, but know in advance that:

The announcement was sent 2 weeks in advance of the meeting, as required:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
Our AD Advisor approved the meeting (WG chair approval is
sufficient for teleconferences and jabber sessions).
The IESG was consulted because of the special circumstances
in our case, and did not object to BMWG's Interim meeting.

read on,
Al
bmwg chair

At 11:11 AM 10/16/2009, Al Morton wrote:
>BMWG,
>
>While we finalize the conference-oriented details
>for the Interim meeting, I want to communicate the
>consensus on the DATE, with the time being constrained
>by the time zones involved. (There are a few who could not
>make this date, but it seems to be the best for most).
>
>UTC (GMT)  Friday, October 30, 2009 at 13:30:00 to 16:00:00
(Continue reading)

Dave Thaler | 16 Oct 21:44 2009
Picon

Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
"Conference calls and jabber sessions must be announced at least 
two weeks prior to the call or session, and the agenda must be 
published at least one week before call or session"

The quoted text at bottom announces a meeting 2 weeks from today,
so it seems to meet the two weeks notice requirement to me.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iab-bounces <at> iab.org [mailto:iab-bounces <at> iab.org] On Behalf Of
> James M. Polk
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:26 PM
> To: IESG Secretary
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; bmwg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting
> 
> Err...  since when are virtual meetings allowable on 10 days notice,
> and to occur within 10 days of a full IETF meeting?
> 
> Isn't this too little notice and too close to the actual IETF meeting
> to provide the notification necessary and an appropriate separation
> to get anything done prior to the actual IETF meeting?
> 
> IMO there needs to be a least 2 weeks notice for any virtual meeting,
> and they cannot occur within 2 weeks of the start or end of an IETF
> meeting (though I think I like the old 30 day rule for this latter
> aspect).
> 
(Continue reading)

James M. Polk | 16 Oct 21:25 2009
Picon

Re: BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

Err...  since when are virtual meetings allowable on 10 days notice, 
and to occur within 10 days of a full IETF meeting?

Isn't this too little notice and too close to the actual IETF meeting 
to provide the notification necessary and an appropriate separation 
to get anything done prior to the actual IETF meeting?

IMO there needs to be a least 2 weeks notice for any virtual meeting, 
and they cannot occur within 2 weeks of the start or end of an IETF 
meeting (though I think I like the old 30 day rule for this latter aspect).

James

At 02:05 PM 10/16/2009, IESG Secretary wrote:
>As indicated at the Stockholm IETF's BMWG meeting, BMWG will
>be using PSTN conferencing (and probably webex) for the following
>interim meeting to advance some specific current work items and
>discuss new work proposals.
>
>UTC (GMT) Friday, October 30, 2009 at 13:30:00 to 16:00:00
>start times in
>Geneva (Switzerland) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:30:00 PM UTC+1 hour CET
>New York (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:30:00 AM UTC-4 hours EDT
>San Francisco (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7 hours PDT
>Note that the USA will still be observing Daylight Savings Time,
>while Europe and many other locations be on Standard Time.
>
>See the BMWG Archive for more information, specifically:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02078.html
>
(Continue reading)

James M. Polk | 16 Oct 22:00 2009
Picon

Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

fair - I was off 4 days, and sit corrected.

however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is awfully 
close, don't you think?

James

At 02:44 PM 10/16/2009, Dave Thaler wrote:
>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
>"Conference calls and jabber sessions must be announced at least
>two weeks prior to the call or session, and the agenda must be
>published at least one week before call or session"
>
>The quoted text at bottom announces a meeting 2 weeks from today,
>so it seems to meet the two weeks notice requirement to me.
>
>-Dave
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: iab-bounces <at> iab.org [mailto:iab-bounces <at> iab.org] On Behalf Of
> > James M. Polk
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:26 PM
> > To: IESG Secretary
> > Cc: Working Group Chairs; bmwg <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting
> >
> > Err...  since when are virtual meetings allowable on 10 days notice,
> > and to occur within 10 days of a full IETF meeting?
> >
(Continue reading)

John C Klensin | 16 Oct 22:10 2009

Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting


--On Friday, October 16, 2009 15:00 -0500 "James M. Polk"
<jmpolk <at> cisco.com> wrote:

> fair - I was off 4 days, and sit corrected.
> 
> however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is
> awfully close, don't you think?

FWIW, we used to have a firm rule against interim meetings close
to IETF ones.   I have no idea if it got lost in history,
repealed, or is still taken seriously.  If the WG is meeting at
IETF, it leaves insufficient time for minutes and new drafts to
be available before the IETF meeting.  If it is used instead of
a meeting at IETF... well, we used to think that was a bad idea
because it prevented the cross-review and cross-fertilization
that are our justification for big, everyone-meets-in-the-same
place, IETF meetings.

Of course, there are always the possibility of exceptional
cases, which is why we pay the IESG the big bucks.

     john

Gmane