my detailed notes below ...
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 18:27 08/03/2006, Carl Malamud wrote:
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.
Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.
Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the
IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short
for us to spot this nit.
Brian
Leslie Daigle
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.
Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the
IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short
for us to spot this nit.
Or to run a spell
At 18:27 08/03/2006, Carl Malamud wrote:
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.
Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the
IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short
for
As you may have seen, the Department of Commerce has recently
published a Request for Interest (RFI), for the whole IANA function:
http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/Reference%2DNumber%2DDOCNTIARFI0001/SynopsisR.html
While the RFI was not a surprise, the IETF was not consulted in any way
about
