From fred@cisco.com Sun May 30 15:32:52 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB403A692C for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 15:32:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.259 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.260, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yyj9nM3HqLBC for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 15:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685853A6934 for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 15:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALeEAkyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACeMnGmZJhohRYEg0g X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,329,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="204889492" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2010 22:31:57 +0000 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com [10.32.244.221]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4UMVpkK018855; Sun, 30 May 2010 22:31:52 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Sun, 30 May 2010 15:31:57 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com on Sun, 30 May 2010 15:31:57 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 15:31:45 -0700 Message-Id: <5992A97F-D2A1-490C-AED1-13D16ED18960@cisco.com> References: To: "Su, David H." X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF SmartPower Directorate Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] [smartpower-interest] FW: Topics for PAP01 Face to Face Meeting X-BeenThere: smartpowerdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 22:32:53 -0000 IETF meetings are tough to co-locate meetings with, due to the fact that = we have up to 120 working groups meeting and many people have work in = several of them. I would like to invite you to a meeting of the Smart = Power Directorate, though, which will in fact be at the meeting as it is = an IETF event. My question is therefore what amount of time you want. Is this a 1-2 = hour meeting, a one day meeting, or more? If it is on the order of 1-4 = hours, I may be able to get a room on the Friday that is otherwise = unused and schedule it as, from the IETF perspective, a joint meeting of = the Smart Power folks and PAP 1. Alternatively, we could schedule a = meeting on Saturday after the IETF (31 July) or before (24 July); those = would not be able to borrow an IETF room and would therefore mean NIST = footing the bill. If we don't have it surrounding the IETF, I would suggest doing it in = Washington, perhaps 23 July, so that US people can stop there en route = to Maastricht. A meeting the week of 12 July would conflict with the = ITU's FG meeting, the week of July 5th is personally hard for me, and = June simply isn't going to work for me due to other business travel.=20 On May 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Su, David H. wrote: > I was going to poll for a date and decide one day or two days. = Originally I was thinking of having it with IETF, but the feed back says = people won't be able to attend both meetings even if it is at the same = place. What do you think? Please suggest alternatives, I am counting on = you to be there. So far there are not many responses. http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF