Subject: [video-codec] Postponing netvc BoF until IETF 91

From: Jack Moffitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:29:30 -0600

We are in the process of engaging with potential contributors to what
we hope will be a future working group.  This process is a little
behind where we expected it to be at this point. We want to be sure to
have a successful BoF, and to do that we think it would be prudent to
let that engagement continue informally for awhile longer to make sure
there is widespread interest in the IETF community. To allow for that
discussion to continue, we will resubmit the BoF request for IETF 92.

To get that discussion started, we posted a draft charter earlier to
this list, and we'll be posting some drafts and things soon as well.

jack.

---

From: Paul Coverdale <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:56:28 -0400

Just to clarify, because the subject heading indicates otherwise, the netvc
codec BoF scheduled for November 13th at IETF 91 is now postponed until IETF
92?

...Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: video-codec [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Jack Moffitt
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:30 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [video-codec] Postponing netvc BoF until IETF 91
>
>We are in the process of engaging with potential contributors to what we
>hope will be a future working group.  This process is a little behind
>where we expected it to be at this point. We want to be sure to have a
>successful BoF, and to do that we think it would be prudent to let that
>engagement continue informally for awhile longer to make sure there is
>widespread interest in the IETF community. To allow for that discussion
>to continue, we will resubmit the BoF request for IETF 92.
>
>_______________________________________________
>video-codec mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 23:34:54 +0000

Paul, yes my understanding is the plan is not to run it in Hawaii this november but instead do at the following IETF next spring. I think the subject line is just a typo.

---

From: Jack Moffitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:13:07 -0600

Yes, I bothced the subject line. We will resubmit the BoF to IETF 92.

jack.

---

From: Paul Coverdale <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:27:15 -0400

Thanks for the clarification, Jack, I thought it might just be a typo. But
do you envisage any kind of informal session, as was held in Toronto?

...Paul

>Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 9:13 PM
>To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>Cc: Paul Coverdale; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [video-codec] Postponing netvc BoF until IETF 91
>
>> Paul, yes my understanding is the plan is not to run it in Hawaii this
>november but instead do at the following IETF next spring. I think the
>subject line is just a typo.
>>
>>
>>> Just to clarify, because the subject heading indicates otherwise, the
>>> netvc codec BoF scheduled for November 13th at IETF 91 is now
>>> postponed until IETF 92?
>>>
>>> ...Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We are in the process of engaging with potential contributors to
>>>> what we hope will be a future working group.  This process is a
>>>> little behind where we expected it to be at this point. We want to
>>>> be sure to have a successful BoF, and to do that we think it would
>>>> be prudent to let that engagement continue informally for awhile
>>>> longer to make sure there is widespread interest in the IETF
>>>> community. To allow for that discussion to continue, we will
>resubmit the BoF request for IETF 92.
>>>>

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:04:06 -0700

> do you envisage any kind of informal session, as was held in Toronto?

I don't think we're planning a session at the venue like we had last 
time, though if people wanted to get together for dinner some night to 
discuss drafts that need to be written and that sort of thing, that 
might be a good idea.