On 1/29/17 8:08 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Either of these seem like reasonable WG decisions (though the > charter pretty clearly contemplates (b)) but the current draft > doesn't really do either. For that reason, I don't think it makes > sense to just proceed as-is. Typically for last call comments > of this magnitude the process would be to discuss them at the > next IETF. Accordingly, rather than pubreq the draft now, > we'd ask for agenda time to discuss in Chicago.
Of course, but in the meantime I'm not really a fan of holding work hostage to meeting schedules (my own deficiencies in that area duly noted), plus -bis draft authors often don't come to meetings, plus it looks possible that a number of regular attendees may not be coming to Chicago because of the political situation. We can try to have a conference call in the next week or so, if people are up for that. Melinda
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
