Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
To be clear, I encouraged the chairs to hold the meeting as scheduled. My reasons: a) It is likely some people registered for IETF 109 specifically to attend this and maybe one or two other email-related meetings, possibly at their own expense. Canceling this late in the game does them a disservice. b) Canceling simply on the basis that it's late at night for some people doesn't seem compelling in the IETF context. c) As Jim suggested, high-bandwidth discussion will be useful, even if the list of attendees is relatively small, as any consensus they develop needs to be verified with the list anyway. d) My own reading is that more people would likely attend than those who expressed interest in canceling. -MSK, your ART AD On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Yes, I apologize for not getting back to the WG as promised. The meeting > will proceed as scheduled. > > -MSK, ART AD > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:10 PM Dotzero wrote: > >> Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to >> participate, it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled. >> Just saying. If the agenda is that light weight I may skip it even if held. >> >> Michael Hammer. >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:35 PM Dave Crocker wrote: >> >>> On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> > I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you >>> > shortly. >>> >>> >>> Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. >>> >>> Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about >>> canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' >>> agenda. >>> >>> A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for cancellation, >>> with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting (though today, >>> some have). >>> >>> We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have not >>> received a definitive decision by the chairs. >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >>> >>> ___ >>> dmarc mailing list >>> dmarc@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >>> >> ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
Yes, I apologize for not getting back to the WG as promised. The meeting will proceed as scheduled. -MSK, ART AD On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:10 PM Dotzero wrote: > Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to participate, > it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled. Just saying. > If the agenda is that light weight I may skip it even if held. > > Michael Hammer. > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:35 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > >> On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you >> > shortly. >> >> >> Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. >> >> Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about >> canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' >> agenda. >> >> A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for cancellation, >> with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting (though today, >> some have). >> >> We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have not >> received a definitive decision by the chairs. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> >> ___ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On 17 Nov 2020, at 11:35, Dave Crocker wrote: On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you shortly. Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' agenda. A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for cancellation, with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting (though today, some have). We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have not received a definitive decision by the chairs. +1. Given the amount of activity on the mailing list, it seemed obvious to me that we would benefit from some higher-bandwidth interaction. But apparently that’s less obvious to others. If the meeting is held, I will be there (since it’s 9-11 pm here in California), but understand if we don’t want to keep others up for a less than fully productive meeting. -Jim ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
+1 to being able to sleep through the night and deal with issues asynchronously on the list. --Kurt On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:10 PM Dotzero wrote: > Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to participate, > it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled. Just saying. > If the agenda is that light weight I may skip it even if held. > > Michael Hammer. > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:35 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > >> On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you >> > shortly. >> >> >> Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. >> >> Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about >> canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' >> agenda. >> >> A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for cancellation, >> with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting (though today, >> some have). >> >> We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have not >> received a definitive decision by the chairs. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> >> ___ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to participate, it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled. Just saying. If the agenda is that light weight I may skip it even if held. Michael Hammer. On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:35 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you > > shortly. > > > Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. > > Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about > canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' > agenda. > > A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for cancellation, > with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting (though today, > some have). > > We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have not > received a definitive decision by the chairs. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you shortly. Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' agenda. A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for cancellation, with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting (though today, some have). We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have not received a definitive decision by the chairs. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:54 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? > > I was planning to attend. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
> If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? Scheduled time to be there "virtually" at the meeting. - Alwin On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 10:28, Gren Elliot wrote: > > If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? > > I am - admittedly because I thought this would be a good chance to learn > more about DMARC. > Would this not be a good chance to potentially increase interest? > > > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
> If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? I am - admittedly because I thought this would be a good chance to learn more about DMARC. Would this not be a good chance to potentially increase interest? ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? -MSK, ART AD On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:46 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you > shortly. > > -MSK, ART AD > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 4:38 PM Jim Fenton wrote: > >> So what’s the conclusion on this? I still see the dmarc meeting on the >> agenda page, but without any agenda or meeting materials (unlike virtually >> every other WG meeting). >> >> -Jim >> >> On 13 Nov 2020, at 12:26, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> >> Dave >> >> It's the latter. Alexey and I are quite fine with running the meeting, >> that was part of our conversation. >> >> tim >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:23 PM Dave Crocker wrote: >> >>> On 11/13/2020 10:40 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: >>> > During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming >>> > meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be >>> > altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well >>> recently, >>> > and the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. >>> We >>> > wanted to get some feedback from the working group. >>> > >>> > Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a >>> > meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the >>> > meeting and keep moving along. >>> >>> >>> Four days before a scheduled, rare meeting, it's being canceled because >>> one of its 3 chairs can't attend? >>> >>> Or because it has suddenly been realized that the meeting won't be >>> useful? >>> >>> Really? >>> >>> d/ >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >>> >> ___ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> >> ___ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you shortly. -MSK, ART AD On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 4:38 PM Jim Fenton wrote: > So what’s the conclusion on this? I still see the dmarc meeting on the > agenda page, but without any agenda or meeting materials (unlike virtually > every other WG meeting). > > -Jim > > On 13 Nov 2020, at 12:26, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > Dave > > It's the latter. Alexey and I are quite fine with running the meeting, > that was part of our conversation. > > tim > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:23 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > >> On 11/13/2020 10:40 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> > During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming >> > meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be >> > altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, >> > and the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. >> We >> > wanted to get some feedback from the working group. >> > >> > Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a >> > meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the >> > meeting and keep moving along. >> >> >> Four days before a scheduled, rare meeting, it's being canceled because >> one of its 3 chairs can't attend? >> >> Or because it has suddenly been realized that the meeting won't be useful? >> >> Really? >> >> d/ >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:35 PM Todd Herr wrote: > I vote option 3. There's quite a lot of meaty discussion to be had on > these topics, and I can't see any of them reaching consensus or anything > close to it during the 30 minutes or so each would be allotted. > My understanding is that consensus calls from meetings still have to be confirmed with the list before they become action items, so this by itself isn't a reason to cancel. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
So what’s the conclusion on this? I still see the dmarc meeting on the agenda page, but without any agenda or meeting materials (unlike virtually every other WG meeting). -Jim On 13 Nov 2020, at 12:26, Tim Wicinski wrote: Dave It's the latter. Alexey and I are quite fine with running the meeting, that was part of our conversation. tim On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:23 PM Dave Crocker wrote: On 11/13/2020 10:40 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, and the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. We wanted to get some feedback from the working group. Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the meeting and keep moving along. Four days before a scheduled, rare meeting, it's being canceled because one of its 3 chairs can't attend? Or because it has suddenly been realized that the meeting won't be useful? Really? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On Fri 13/Nov/2020 19:40:33 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote: During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, and the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. We wanted to get some feedback from the working group. Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the meeting and keep moving along. 3) I follow list discussion better, but in this case I won't be able to participate to the meeting anyway (bad timezone). Best Ale -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming > meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be > altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, and > the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. We wanted > to get some feedback from the working group. > > Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a > meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the > meeting and keep moving along. > > [snip] > I vote option 3. There's quite a lot of meaty discussion to be had on these topics, and I can't see any of them reaching consensus or anything close to it during the 30 minutes or so each would be allotted. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
Dave It's the latter. Alexey and I are quite fine with running the meeting, that was part of our conversation. tim On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:23 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/13/2020 10:40 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming > > meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be > > altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, > > and the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. We > > wanted to get some feedback from the working group. > > > > Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a > > meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the > > meeting and keep moving along. > > > Four days before a scheduled, rare meeting, it's being canceled because > one of its 3 chairs can't attend? > > Or because it has suddenly been realized that the meeting won't be useful? > > Really? > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On 11/13/2020 10:40 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, and the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. We wanted to get some feedback from the working group. Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the meeting and keep moving along. Four days before a scheduled, rare meeting, it's being canceled because one of its 3 chairs can't attend? Or because it has suddenly been realized that the meeting won't be useful? Really? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:41 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming > meeting. Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be > altered. Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, and > the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting. We wanted > to get some feedback from the working group. > > Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together. Should we 1) have a > meeting around these topics; 2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the > meeting and keep moving along. > I'd vote for 3. I think that it would be better to discuss/hash out these topics on the list. Perhaps we could start each one with a cogent summary of the issues related to the topic. --Kurt ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
