IETF
dispatch@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, September 29, 2015< ^ >
Jonathan Lennox has set the subject to: DISPATCH WG session
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[16:46:23] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[16:48:19] smccammon joins the room
[16:50:28] Barry Leiba joins the room
[16:50:30] ben joins the room
[16:50:32] <Barry Leiba> 'lo
[16:50:38] <Alissa Cooper> Hi
[16:50:51] <ben> I'm here (also listening to ieee call, so forgive me if I lag)
[16:51:05] <Barry Leiba> I'm on IEEE call too, but only half listening there.
[16:51:19] <Barry Leiba> So I'm probably 2/3 here.  Should be enough.
[16:51:19] <ben> @barry, same here
[16:51:21] <Alissa Cooper> yeah, multi-tasking. so, first question is: are we good with the one 2-hour session for dispatch? or do we need to add another session (or make it 2.5 hours)?
[16:51:22] <Barry Leiba> What's up?
[16:51:52] <ben> no dispatch chairs here, are they.
[16:51:56] <Alissa Cooper> I thought it was okay but several of the chairs seem to think otherwise
[16:52:00] <Barry Leiba> I don't think we need two sessions.  I think the appsawg stuff won't take more than a relatively few minutes (can check with the appsawg chairs).
[16:52:10] <ben> I don't _think_ dispatch has much to put on the agenda this time
[16:52:27] <Alissa Cooper> ok, fine I just wanted to double check before asking the next question
[16:52:29] <Barry Leiba> It's usually just brief status unless there are issues that need discussion, and I'm not aware that anything really needs discussion at this point.
[16:52:53] <Alissa Cooper> stephanie are we still looking at http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/94/agenda/acooper%40cdt.org/alc2/edit ?
[16:53:14] <Alissa Cooper> question was whether slim against cdni is ok
[16:53:18] <Barry Leiba> The main question for me is whether we'll have much in the way of "I'd like to talk with the area about X".
[16:53:57] <Alissa Cooper> well we have the osrtp thing. and depending how the re-chartering discussion goes on the list, there may be some time spent on that.
[16:54:06] <Barry Leiba> I don't think there's any overlap between slim and cdni, so it's just a conflict for me.  But I really do need to be in both — slim because it's new and cdni because they need a bit of steering just now.
[16:54:51] <smccammon> can netvc be against ISS BoF?
[16:55:05] <Barry Leiba> That ought to work.
[16:55:06] <Alissa Cooper> could swap slim and avtcore
[16:55:38] <ben> + 1 to alissa. I just scanned the recent dispatch list activity, and don't see anything other than osrtp. And the time of the dispatch charter discussion is likely to spill into the meeting.
[16:56:19] <smccammon> Ok, how about this
[16:56:20] <smccammon> http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/94/agenda/smccammon%40amsl.com/stephanie11/edit
[16:56:32] <smccammon> LMAP ends up on Monday at 1300 (2nd priority conflict with v6ops)
[16:56:48] <Barry Leiba> appsawg always gets a number of requests to present stuff.  I'd like us to vet that (where "us" probably means the chairs), but I'd like to be somewhat lenient this time, for transition.
[16:57:10] <ben> does anyone have heartburn about httpbis vs mmusic? I _think_ it's okay
[16:57:33] <Barry Leiba> I have no problem with httpbis/mmusic, no.
[16:57:34] <ben> @Barry, does "lenient" still allow us to limit to the time available?
[16:57:44] <Barry Leiba> Ben: absolutely.
[16:58:00] <Barry Leiba> Stephanie, two wishes on the scheduling tool...
[16:58:24] <Barry Leiba> 1. I'd like to be able to push the "show all in the area" button and have it stick, so I can scan it.
[16:58:29] <Alissa Cooper> well, httpbis vs. mmusic is probably bad for the browser folks
[16:58:42] <Barry Leiba> 2. I'd like a similar button to show all sessions for a particular AD.
[16:58:55] <smccammon> Okay Barry I’ll let the tools team know, thanks
[16:59:01] <Barry Leiba> Do the browser folks go to mmusic?  I didn't think so.
[16:59:08] <Barry Leiba> But if they do, then, yes, that'd be bad.
[16:59:19] <Alissa Cooper> the people implementing webrtc
[17:00:14] <Alissa Cooper> this whole simulcast thing will be discussed in mmusic
[17:00:56] <Alissa Cooper> I'm sorry, I have another conflicting call so my massive multi-task will have to end now. will be back in about 15-20 mins if you all are still around.
[17:00:57] <ben> yes, I would be concerned about the webrtc folks. At least some of those go to httpbis.
[17:01:26] <Barry Leiba> OK, then we should be sure that httpbis and mmusic put each other in their conflict lists.
[17:01:36] <smccammon> that would be excellent
[17:01:48] <ben> yeah, I guess transitive conflicts don't work :-)
[17:01:53] <Barry Leiba> he...
[17:02:27] <ben> BTW, when is the conflict resolution discussion? I can't find it on my calendar.
[17:02:36] <smccammon> Thursday
[17:02:47] <smccammon> during the formal telechat, at the end
[17:02:57] <Barry Leiba> That's the way we always used to do it.
[17:02:59] <ben> got it, thanks
[17:03:08] <Barry Leiba> Before Ben was on the IESG.
[17:03:12] <ben> only my second time :-)
[17:03:27] <ben> (second meeting, not time on the IESG)
[17:03:39] <smccammon> so no one sees an issue with netvc vs iss bof?
[17:04:25] <Barry Leiba> I can't think of one.  I had planned to drop in on netvc, but I don't have to.
[17:04:40] <smccammon> ok, I’m also working on a solution for httpbis vs mmusic
[17:04:46] <ben> I don't think there's a conflict there.
[17:04:51] <Barry Leiba> So I guess it's just httpbis and mmusic.  Stephanie, will you please add level 1 conflicts between those two?
[17:05:05] <smccammon> yes
[17:05:24] <ben> keep in mind that either ICE or one mmusic group will probably get canceled, if it helps
[17:05:43] <smccammon> It’s definitely on my mind :)
[17:06:25] <ben> I almost wonder if we could turn the ICE slot into some sort of schrodinger's slot that might be ICE or might be MMUSIC.
[17:06:29] <Barry Leiba> Will there be a conflict between httpbis and ice?
[17:07:06] <ben> good question. I lean towards no, or at least it will be a lesser issue than for mmusic
[17:07:25] <smccammon> I think Alissa mentioned that if ICE cancels we’ll move MMUSIC into that slot, and if MMUSIC cancels we will cancel the wednesday 0900 session
[17:08:16] <ben> either of which fix the clue conflict on wed-=good
[17:08:45] <Barry Leiba> So, Ben, the real thing is...
[17:08:54] <smccammon> mmusic lists conflicts with sfc and sacm which are both currently in the ice slot
[17:09:12] <ben> ah, great
[17:09:19] <Barry Leiba> There's a slot to talk about ICE.  That slot might be *called* "ICE" or it might be *called* "MMUSIC"… but it will be to talk about ICE.  Right?
[17:11:09] <ben> That is my expectation
[17:11:29] <smccammon> so those conflicts are less important?
[17:12:08] <ben> Obviously the sacm and sfc conflicts are due to some individual(s) working in both. I'm not sure if those would be ICE focused or rest-of-mmusic focused. I need to check with the chairs.
[17:12:10] <Barry Leiba> Then I propose that we schedule it that way: one MMUSIC session, one ICE session.  If ICE isn't chartered in time, we either call it an ICE BoF or publish it as MMUSIC on the agenda.  But for now, for scheduling purposes, we're confusing ourselves as we have it.
[17:12:55] <ben> agreed. And I will be surprised if we don't get an ICE wg by then.
[17:12:59] <smccammon> so does that mean we should get rid of the wednesday 0900 mmusic session now, or should we wait
[17:13:40] <ben> I'm okay doing it now—the only reason I might delay was to let the chairs know what was going on. I can explain that after the fact.
[17:13:59] <smccammon> well we don’t have to cancel it right now, we can just remove it from the grid
[17:14:07] <ben> wfm
[17:14:54] <smccammon> okay, removing from http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/94/agenda/smccammon%40amsl.com/stephanie11/edit
[17:21:02] <smccammon> okay so the length of sessions in timeslots are getting a bit funky but how about this
[17:21:03] <smccammon> http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/94/agenda/smccammon%40amsl.com/stephanie12/edit
[17:21:38] <smccammon> This moves cdni from Mon 1710 to Wed 0900, move httpbis to mon 1710, move tsvwg from wed 0900 to mon 1710, move t2trg from mon 1710 to wed 0900
[17:23:42] <ben> This looks pretty good on a quick scan. Barry, do you see any issue with stir vs httpbis? I wonder about cullen and ekr.
[17:25:15] <Barry Leiba> Yes, looks nice to me too.  I don't know whether ekr needs to be in httpbis right now — Patrick and Richard can certainly cover that for him.
[17:25:54] <Barry Leiba> Don't know why Cullen needs to be in httpbis.  He's usually not.
[17:25:54] <ben> I just checked with RjS. He said it would give some minor heartburn but they could deal
[17:26:01] <ben> He needs Richard in stir
[17:26:50] <Barry Leiba> Stephanie, if you can deconflict stir and httpbis, let's… but don't get too wound up.
[17:27:21] <Barry Leiba> It'd be nice to keep httpbis on Monday, in case any W3C people come and want it early in the week.
[17:28:01] <smccammon> Okay i will add it to the list
[17:28:11] <Barry Leiba> Could swap stir with clue/ecrit, maybe?
[17:28:29] <smccammon> stir and tls are first priority
[17:28:31] <smccammon> for each other
[17:28:44] <Barry Leiba> Ah, missed that.  That's ekr.
[17:28:46] <ben> right—I just saw that
[17:28:47] <Barry Leiba> Never mind.
[17:30:26] <smccammon> Alissa’s groups are pretty hard to move at this point, she has a group in every slot except two
[17:31:28] <Barry Leiba> She's a busy bee.  Whereas Ben and Barry are just B's.
[17:31:52] <smccammon> if stir was willing to take a 1.5 hour session we could swap them with modern on tues at 1710
[17:33:24] <Barry Leiba> I'm guessing that won't work, but I don't know for sure.
[17:33:50] <ben> Robert thinks they need the whole time. The shaken stuff may eat time on controversy.
[17:34:17] <smccammon> ok then, I think we have to leave it for right now but I will add it to the list
[17:35:01] <Barry Leiba> kewl
[17:35:39] <smccammon> does everything else look okay?
[17:35:49] <smccammon> I’ll also wait for alissa to get back to verify the lmap move
[17:36:23] <ben> Nothing leaps out to me as a problem.
[17:36:35] <Barry Leiba> Nor to me.
[17:36:39] <smccammon> fabulous
[17:36:48] <ben> (as long as I'm allowed to change my mind later :-) )
[17:36:54] <smccammon> lol
[17:37:20] <smccammon> well I suppose ;)
[17:44:51] <Alissa Cooper> I'm back
[17:45:19] <Alissa Cooper> everything got sorted?
[17:45:32] <smccammon> I think so, please check it out
[17:45:33] <smccammon> http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/94/agenda/smccammon%40amsl.com/stephanie12/edit
[17:46:31] <smccammon> also, if lmap wants to be even later in the day we can swap the two 2 hour columns on monday
[17:47:17] <smccammon> and netvc has two 1.5 hour sessions instead of one 2 hour and one 1 hour
[17:47:18] <Alissa Cooper> there is only 1 2-hour column though
[17:47:29] <smccammon> 1300-1500 and 1710-1910
[17:47:33] <Alissa Cooper> oh I see sorry
[17:47:47] <Alissa Cooper> I think that would be better also to de-conflict with v6ops
[17:48:15] <Alissa Cooper> oh I see, you were saying swap the whole column
[17:48:41] <Alissa Cooper> yes, later is better
[17:48:46] <smccammon> ok
[17:48:58] <smccammon> it would be better but I’m not sure how to do that yet
[17:49:05] <smccammon> is it a really serious conflict?
[17:52:40] <Alissa Cooper> I think leave it for now and I'll check with the chairs. I think it's way more important to be in the afternoon than to avoid the conflict.
[17:56:09] <smccammon> okay cool I’ll switch the columns so lmap is at 1710
[17:56:13] <smccammon> everything else look okay?
[17:56:21] <Alissa Cooper> yes. thanks!
[17:58:07] <smccammon> cool, I’m going to write all this up and send it out to the group
[17:58:08] <smccammon> thanks!
[18:10:37] <Alissa Cooper> the lmap chairs are fine with the v6ops conflict
[18:10:50] <smccammon> that’s awesome, thanks
[19:00:19] ben leaves the room
[20:10:23] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[22:09:01] smccammon leaves the room
[23:54:33] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!