Subject: httpbis vs yam meeting slots in Stockholm

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:54:23 +0200

Hi,

I just noticed that HTTPBIS and YAM run in parallel; that's IMHO 
non-optimal because both would benefit from people with MIME experience...

Dunno whether this has been already considered, and whether it's 
possible to do something about it...

BR, Julian

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:14:42 -0400

Hi Julian,

--On July 7, 2009 8:54:23 AM +0200 Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> Dunno whether this has been already considered, and whether it's possible
> to do something about it...

+1

We should try and get this conflict fixed.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:47:06 +0100

Cyrus Daboo wrote:

> Hi Julian,
>
> --On July 7, 2009 8:54:23 AM +0200 Julian Reschke 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

Can we swap httpbis with either:
 Monday, 13:00-15:00 (idnabis)
or
 Tuesday, 13:00-15:00 (alto)

?

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:50:46 +0100

> Tuesday, 13:00-15:00 (alto)

Actually alto would be better, as there is less overlap in attendence 
between YAM and ALTO, as far as I can see.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:01:45 +0200

> Tuesday, 13:00-15:00 (alto)

Both sound good to me; the things I'd like HTTPbis not to collide with 
are YAM and VCARDDAV (but of course that's just a personal preference).

BR, Julian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:04:02 -0400

>  Monday, 13:00-15:00 (idnabis)

Moving IDNABIS would set off a whole series of other problems
including, I believe, unavailability of the Chair.

FWIW, given the concerns about the content rules for URIs and
IRIs, a conflict between HTTPBIS and IDNABIS should also be on
the "must avoid" list.

    john

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:27:47 +1000

Moving HTTPbis to Monday or Tuesday would lead to a chair availability  
problem as well.

Furthermore, the agenda has been marked as FINAL, and people tend to  
book travel once that happens.

It'd be best if we could move HTTPbis to another slot on Thursday;  
e.g., morning I and afternoon II don't have any obvious conflicts (at  
least to me), and afternoon II looks to have available space (although  
I suspect that's because congresshall A and B are being prepared for  
the plenary, although I note congresshall C is in use).

Cheers,

On 10/07/2009, at 4:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:27:18 +0100

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Moving HTTPbis to Monday or Tuesday would lead to a chair 
> availability  problem as well.

Oops. Sorry about that.

> book travel once that happens.

Well, don't get me started on that ;-). YAM has appeared in the only 
version of the agenda I saw, so I couldn't possibly have commented on 
the conflict before that.

> e.g., morning I

This wouldn't work, as there are no room available.
And there are no Apps area slots, so we can't swap anything. We could 
try to swap slots with WG in other areas, but this might create other 
conflicts elsewhere.
Also note that the morning I is 2.5 hours, not 2 hours allocated for 
HTTPBIS.

> and afternoon II don't have any obvious conflicts (at  least to me), 
> and afternoon II looks to have available space (although  I suspect 
> that's because congresshall A and B are being prepared for  the 
> plenary, although I note congresshall C is in use).

It is also only 1 hour long.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:30:34 +0100

> Mark Nottingham wrote:

 [...]

> It is also only 1 hour long.

Considering that my original proposal is not working and I showed that 
Mark's alternatives wouldn't work either, I am suggesting we leave 
things as is.
Unless people have a third proposal that would work for the majority of 
interested participants.

We can try to coordinate agendas between the two meetings.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:37:36 -0400

Would Wed afternoon @1510 work? There appears to be an open slot there.
The only potential conflict I see is with SIMPLE, but I'm less concerned
about that compared with HTTPbis.

    Tony

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Unless people have a third proposal that would work for the majority
> of interested participants.
>

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:12:00 -0400

And, as an ALTO author, I would prefer not to have a YAM/ALTO  
conflict, if possible.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:12:39 +0100

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
 [...]

> We can try to coordinate agendas between the two meetings.

I've asked MORG chairs to leave 30 minutes at the end of their slot for 
MIME related discussions between web and email folks.
MORG slot is 13:00-15:00 on Wednesday. So we can have this discussion 
starting around 14:30.
/*
*/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:01:24 +0200

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ...

Alexey,

thanks a lot for trying to arrange this.

In the meantime, and after talking to other HTTPbis people, I'm not sure 
it's even needed; my main interest was in finding out about the time 
table for progressing MIME specs to full standard, and that probably can 
be easily discussed informally (reception, or before/after apps area 
meeting).

BR, Julian

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:44:36 +0300

Julian Reschke wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>> Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Considering that my original proposal is not working and I showed 
>>> that Mark's alternatives wouldn't work either, I am suggesting we 
>>> leave things as is.
>> I've asked MORG chairs to leave 30 minutes at the end of their slot 
>> for MIME related discussions between web and email folks.
> In the meantime, and after talking to other HTTPbis people, I'm not 
> sure it's even needed; my main interest was in finding out about the 
> time table for progressing MIME specs to full standard, and that 
> probably can be easily discussed informally (reception, or 
> before/after apps area meeting).

Ok,
In this case I can sell the half hour to the highest bidder :-).
So let me know if you want to talk to me. But note that seats are limited.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:09:07 -0400

--On Friday, July 24, 2009 14:01 +0200 Julian Reschke
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In the meantime, and after talking to other HTTPbis people,
> I'm not sure it's even needed; my main interest was in finding
> out about the time table for progressing MIME specs to full
> standard, and that probably can be easily discussed informally
> (reception, or before/after apps area meeting).

I think we should know a lot more about that after YAM meets.

   john