Looking for objections, since we had consensus in the room in Minneapolis. Thanks for clarifying!
David (as chair) On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Dan York <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > Are you expecting us to send messages to the list agreeing with this? Or > are you taking the lack of *dissenting* messages as a sign of consensus? > > Dan > > P.S. I agree with this action, by the way, and did hum to adopt in the room > in Minneapolis. > > On Dec 26, 2008, at 10:08 AM, David A. Bryan wrote: > >> In Minneapolis, there was a hum taken which indicated rough consensus >> to move towards adopting the P2PSIP diagnostics draft as a working >> group item. Since there were also a number of corrections/changes >> requested, the chairs asked the authors to iterate the draft and post >> it, and then we would verify the consensus on list. >> >> The authors posted the revisions to the draft a few weeks ago: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zheng-p2psip-diagnose-04.txt >> >> I'd like to ask for list consensus to verify the consensus from the >> meeting in favor of adopting this work as a WG item. >> >> David (as chair) >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > -- > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [email protected] > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > Build voice applications based on open standards. > Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free > > > > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
