Hi Daniel and all, Please see my two cents below.
Best, /Marco On 2022-12-07 15:57, Daniel Migault wrote:
Hi,We would like to consider meeting in the IETF 116 in Yokohama. To confirm the meeting request, we would like to get an idea of: 1- who is planning to attend the session remotely or face to face as well as
==>MT I plan to attend the session and to be at IETF 116 onsite. <==
2 - what should be discussed that cannot be discussed during interim meetings
==>MTWell, there is probably nothing that cannot fundamentally be discussed at interim meetings.
However, even though it is hard to predict the details now, I think there will be things to discuss at the end of March, including status and open points of WG documents following the submission cut-off.
In my opinion, this is more effective to happen at a WG session of an IETF meeting, since it attracts a broader audience and is part of a broader, whole-week event during which further, related discussions can easily take place.
On the contrary, interim meetings are an "isolated" event with a smaller audience, that are good to complement WG sessions at an IETF meeting, but that I believe should not be treated as a replacement.
For this particular case, I think it is way better to have an ACE session at IETF 116, and especially instead of the interim meeting scheduled on the week before (that I will most likely have to skip due to a conflict).
<==
Yours, Daniel -- Daniel Migault Ericsson _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
-- Marco Tiloca Ph.D., Senior Researcher Phone: +46 (0)70 60 46 501 RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB Box 1263 164 29 Kista (Sweden) Division: Digital Systems Department: Computer Science Unit: Cybersecurity https://www.ri.se
OpenPGP_0xEE2664B40E58DA43.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
