I am OK with either date (June 3 or June 6).
Sriram
>
>Please respond as to whether you would accept moving the interim meeting to 3
>Jun.
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
I actually was pleased with the amount of useful participation we had from
remote participants. Of course, that does not mean that all participants were
as pleased with their experience.
I'm glad that you found the note-taking useful. I'm sorry that the typing of
the note taking disturbed the
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Chris Morrow wrote:
I'd also (and sandy as well) would like some feedback on this
message, the meeting, and suggestions for what a direction forward
might be.
I will observe that my support for having interims was conditioned on
improving the remote participation experien
3 June is preferable for me; 6 June is acceptable.
Russ
On May 3, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Matt Lepinski wrote:
> 3 June and (the originally proposed) 6 June both work equally well for me.
>
> On 4/27/2012 4:27 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
>> Also, NANOG has just told us that they would be able to prov
A reminder that consensus will be called on Friday morning (early).
--Sandy
From: Murphy, Sandra
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:13 AM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: date/time/logistics for Jun meeting in association with nanog
Note that we are coming up
I have read the -03 version of bgpsec profiles. I think the current
version of the document is solid. But I don't think the protocol spec is
quite stable enough to say "we aren't going to be making any changes to
the bgpsec protocol that will require a change to the profiles document"
... but I
3 June does not work for me; 6 June (or any other day that week) does.
Brian
On May 3, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Matt Lepinski wrote:
> 3 June and (the originally proposed) 6 June both work equally well for me.
>
> On 4/27/2012 4:27 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
>> Also, NANOG has just told us that they w
3 June and (the originally proposed) 6 June both work equally well for me.
On 4/27/2012 4:27 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
Also, NANOG has just told us that they would be able to provide meeting room
support, but only on Sunday 3 Jun, 0800-1200.
Please respond as to whether you would accept moving
On 05/03/2012 03:57 AM, t.petch wrote:
> A question arising from my ignorance.
>
> How do values in the security arc get assigned? Not IANA since there are no
> IANA considerations, but how then?
good question... the below are asn.1 things, quickly searching around
isn't helping me out much ei
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> 1) late start/technology fail with the webex (probably webex
>> operations failures more than anything - my fault)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_check
>
>> 6) microphone discipline for in-room vs external folks, often the
>>
A question arising from my ignorance.
How do values in the security arc get assigned? Not IANA since there are no
IANA considerations, but how then?
On the IANA profiles web page I can see
(1.3.6.1.5.5.4)
and
(1.3.6.1.5.5.8)
but no 1.3.6.1.5.5.7, just a reference to Russ.
Tom Petch
- Orig
> 1) late start/technology fail with the webex (probably webex
> operations failures more than anything - my fault)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_check
> 6) microphone discipline for in-room vs external folks, often the
> in-room folk displayed (me too) an inability to wait th
12 matches
Mail list logo
