On 1/16/14, 11:14 AM, KK wrote: > Hey Joel, > > We did consider that, but felt that it might be beneficial to save the > secretariat some compute cycles up front as they try to avoid conflicts and > such.
The first cut is now done by a robot. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote: >>> Dear Opsec WG, >>> >>> We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. There >>> haven’t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little discussion >>> on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secretariat >>> easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for >>> IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It >> would >>> be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter. >> >> If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and then cancel. >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> KK and Gunter >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSEC mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec >>> >> >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
