Re: [Taps] ACTION REQUIRED: updating session conflicts

[Colin Perkins]

> On 19 Apr 2018, at 16:26, Aaron Falk  wrote:
> 
> Updated:
> 
> First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic panrg 
> tls
> Second Priority: tcpinc mptcp saag mmusic tram irtfopen
> 

I have drafts in AVTCORE and RTCWEB, so it’d be good if they could be on the 
list.

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/




___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Re: [Taps] ACTION REQUIRED: updating session conflicts

[Tommy Pauly]

Hi Aaron,

I’m also an author/editor for capport and ipsecme, so I’d like to add those to 
the list if possible.

Thanks,
Tommy

> On Apr 19, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Aaron Falk  wrote:
> 
> Updated:
> 
> First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic panrg 
> tls
> Second Priority: tcpinc mptcp saag mmusic tram irtfopen
> 
> Any other input?
> 
> --aaron
> 
> On 17 Apr 2018, at 11:46, Christopher Wood wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM Brian Trammell (IETF) 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17 Apr 2018, at 17:22, Aaron Falk  wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks-
> 
> We should update our conflict list for scheduling TAPS meetings during
> 
> the IETF week. Here’s the algorithm I’d like you to consider:
> 
> • If you are an author/editor in TAPS and an author/editor or
> 
> chair in another wg, that is a first priority conflict
> 
> • If you are a contributor to TAPS and an author/editor or chair
> 
> in another wg, that is a second priority conflict
> 
> • If you are a contributor to TAPS and a contributor to another
> 
> wg (which you feel you should attend), that may be a conflict depending on
> how many priority of the work to TAPS.
> 
> • If you feel you “should attend” TAPS and another wg, that is
> 
> not a conflict (sorry!)
> 
> I propose the revised conflict list below based on my (imperfect)
> 
> understanding of current TAPS contributors. There’s been some discussion
> that “third priority” is confusing to the secretariat so I’m hoping we can
> converge on just two.
> 
> Please send feedback. Thanks.
> 
> --aaron
> 
> First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
> 
> +panrg (I chair).
> 
> +TLS, too, where I co-author two drafts.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> ___
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Re: [Taps] ACTION REQUIRED: updating session conflicts

[Aaron Falk]

Updated:

First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic 
panrg tls

Second Priority: tcpinc mptcp saag mmusic tram irtfopen

Any other input?

--aaron

On 17 Apr 2018, at 11:46, Christopher Wood wrote:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM Brian Trammell (IETF) 


wrote:




On 17 Apr 2018, at 17:22, Aaron Falk  wrote:

Hi Folks-

We should update our conflict list for scheduling TAPS meetings 
during

the IETF week. Here’s the algorithm I’d like you to consider:


  • If you are an author/editor in TAPS and an author/editor 
or

chair in another wg, that is a first priority conflict
  • If you are a contributor to TAPS and an author/editor or 
chair

in another wg, that is a second priority conflict
  • If you are a contributor to TAPS and a contributor to 
another
wg (which you feel you should attend), that may be a conflict 
depending on

how many priority of the work to TAPS.
  • If you feel you “should attend” TAPS and another wg, 
that is

not a conflict (sorry!)

I propose the revised conflict list below based on my (imperfect)
understanding of current TAPS contributors. There’s been some 
discussion
that “third priority” is confusing to the secretariat so I’m 
hoping we can

converge on just two.


Please send feedback. Thanks.

--aaron

First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea 
quic

+panrg (I chair).


+TLS, too, where I co-author two drafts.

Thanks,
Chris
___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Re: [Taps] ACTION REQUIRED: updating session conflicts

[Brian Trammell (IETF)]

> On 17 Apr 2018, at 17:22, Aaron Falk  wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks-
> 
> We should update our conflict list for scheduling TAPS meetings during the 
> IETF week. Here’s the algorithm I’d like you to consider:
> 
>   • If you are an author/editor in TAPS and an author/editor or chair in 
> another wg, that is a first priority conflict
>   • If you are a contributor to TAPS and an author/editor or chair in 
> another wg, that is a second priority conflict
>   • If you are a contributor to TAPS and a contributor to another wg 
> (which you feel you should attend), that may be a conflict depending on how 
> many priority of the work to TAPS.
>   • If you feel you “should attend” TAPS and another wg, that is not a 
> conflict (sorry!)
> I propose the revised conflict list below based on my (imperfect) 
> understanding of current TAPS contributors. There’s been some discussion that 
> “third priority” is confusing to the secretariat so I’m hoping we can 
> converge on just two.
> 
> Please send feedback. Thanks.
> 
> --aaron
> 
> First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
+panrg (I chair).

Cheers,

Brian

> Second Priority: tcpinc mptcp saag mmusic tram tls irtfopen
> 
> OLD:
> First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
> Second Priority: tcpinc nvo3 mptcp icnrg httpbis dots i2nsf saag
> Third Priority: mmusic tram sacm mile ipwave cfrg
> 
> ___
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Re: [Taps] ACTION REQUIRED: updating session conflicts

[Gorry Fairhurst]

ACK - works for me, I'd love to add: intarea (as a contributor, and 
TSVWG reviewer).


My own conflicts map to what you have:
First Priority: maprg tcpm iccrg tsvwg tsvarea
Second Priority: rmcat, quic

Gorry

On 17/04/2018, 16:22, Aaron Falk wrote:


Hi Folks-

We should update our conflict list for scheduling TAPS meetings during 
the IETF week. Here’s the algorithm I’d like you to consider:


  * If you are an author/editor in TAPS and an author/editor or chair
in another wg, that is a first priority conflict
  * If you are a contributor to TAPS and an author/editor or chair in
another wg, that is a second priority conflict
  * If you are a contributor to TAPS and a contributor to another wg
(which you feel you should attend), that *may* be a conflict
depending on how many priority of the work to TAPS.
  * If you feel you “should attend” TAPS and another wg, that is not a
conflict (sorry!)

I propose the revised conflict list below based on my (imperfect) 
understanding of current TAPS contributors. There’s been some 
discussion that “third priority” is confusing to the secretariat so 
I’m hoping we can converge on just two.


Please send feedback. Thanks.

--aaron

First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
Second Priority: tcpinc mptcp saag mmusic tram tls irtfopen

OLD:
First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
Second Priority: tcpinc nvo3 mptcp icnrg httpbis dots i2nsf saag
Third Priority: mmusic tram sacm mile ipwave cfrg



___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps


___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

[Taps] ACTION REQUIRED: updating session conflicts

[Aaron Falk]

Hi Folks-

We should update our conflict list for scheduling TAPS meetings during 
the IETF week.  Here’s the algorithm I’d like you to consider:


* If you are an author/editor in TAPS and an author/editor or chair in 
another wg, that is a first priority conflict
* If you are a contributor to TAPS and an author/editor or chair in 
another wg, that is a second priority conflict
* If you are a contributor to TAPS and a contributor to another wg 
(which you feel you should attend), that **may** be a conflict depending 
on how many priority of the work to TAPS.
* If you feel you “should attend” TAPS and another wg, that is not a 
conflict (sorry!)


I propose the revised conflict list below based on my (imperfect) 
understanding of current TAPS contributors.  There’s been some 
discussion that “third priority” is confusing to the secretariat so 
I’m hoping we can converge on just two.


Please send feedback.  Thanks.

--aaron

First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
Second Priority: tcpinc mptcp saag mmusic tram tls irtfopen

OLD:
First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
Second Priority: tcpinc nvo3 mptcp icnrg httpbis dots i2nsf saag
Third Priority: mmusic tram sacm mile ipwave cfrg

___
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps