Re: 2014 Meeting planning

Is it unreasonable to hope that we'll "mostly" wrap up the security
discussions in Zurich? I feel that there are plenty of people who are
primarily interested in those discussions, and it'd be a shame to require
them to attend multiple interims.


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> We currently have a meeting planned in Zurich:
>
> https://github.com/http2/wg_materials/blob/master/interim-14-01/arrangements.md
>
> ... and doubtless we'll have at least one session in London as well:
>   http://www.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates-2014.html#IETF89
>
> I've had a few people asking whether we'll be piggybacking an Interim
> meeting next to the London meeting (like we did for Berlin), so that they
> can do appropriate travel planning.
>
> While it's a little early to say for sure, I think we'll need at least one
> Interim beyond Zurich.
>
> So, I'd like to hear if people think it'd be useful to have an Interim
> adjacent to the London meeting (provided we can find a suitable space,
> which I think shouldn't be horribly difficult).
>
> Likely topics would be any remaining issues in the "core" protocol and a
> continuation of the security discussion (e.g., opportunistic encryption,
> explicit proxy). If there's time for another round of drafts and
> implementation, we'll also do an interop / QA session.
>
> If we did this, the format would likely be two to three days; e.g., if it
> were the week beforehand, it'd be Wednesday to Friday, stopping at
> lunchtime on Friday so that interested parties could go to <
> https://www.w3.org/2014/strint/>.
>
> If not, we'll probably push the next Interim to something like either late
> April or early June, location TBD.
>
> Feel free to respond on-list or privately.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>