Subject: [IPsec] ipsecme not meeting @ IETF 111?

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 05:04:38 -0400

I don’t see ipsecme scheduled at IETF 111, is there no meeting?

Thanks,
Chris.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:30:56 -0400

> 
> On Jun 27, 2021, at 05:04, Christian Hopps <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I hope that is a mistake that can be fixed

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 10:33:48 -0400

> On Jun 27, 2021, at 10:30 AM, Paul Wouters <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I suspect it still can, but time is probably very limited. I believe this is the preliminary agenda.

Thanks,
Chris.

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:26:00 +0300

> >> I don’t see ipsecme scheduled at IETF 111, is there no meeting?

I was too busy before my vacation and forgot to do it before I left
sailing.

> this is the preliminary agenda. 

I sent email today to ask whether it can be still be fixed, we will
see whether they can allocate some time for us.
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:31:05 -0700

> see whether they can allocate some time for us.

The security area has a presence in every slot already, so we would need to
accept some conflicts (and probably the absence of an AD).

My apologies for not reviewing the session (non-)requests before the
deadline; I had some external commitments that took priority.

-Ben

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:19:58 -0400

> accept some conflicts (and probably the absence of an AD).

Something is better than nothing, applies here I think.

Thanks,
Chris.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:09:58 -0400

I think you'll all be happier with a virtual interim meeting with no conflicts.
We can now use meetecho even.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 22:09:30 -0400

Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 808B70FBDDD0DD65 Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>]]
>

It has been my (admittedly limited) experience that the IETF meeting is the driver of things "getting done" in ipsecme. Will an interim have the same result?

Thanks,
Chris.