On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:02 PM, 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.
I requested on back on Dec 3rd: A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Warren Kumari, a Chair of the opsec working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Warren Kumari Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1 Hour Number of Attendees: 75 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: dane opsarea opsawg Second Priority: v6ops Special Requests: One of the chairs also chairs dane, opsawg, opsec. Also part of NOC team, so please nothing first thing on first day. Meetecho --------------------------------------------------------- I was going to to edit it to update the comments and remove the DANE conflict, but as I'm not longer a chair I can no longer edit it... I did remove opsec from DANE, OPSAWG and GAIA conflict lists... W > >> Regards, >> >> KK and Gunter >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSEC mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
