I think a conference call would be good. I think if we call it an interim meeting, we might need to give more notice.
Paul Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2017, at 13:31, Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
