On 29/01/17 23:12, Paul Wouters wrote: > I think a conference call would be good. I think if we call it an > interim meeting, we might need to give more notice.
You need "one week (ideally two)" [1] though the chances of finding a slot that has all the necessary folks within one week seems small. As noted in [1] you don't need AD approval for a virtual interim, but I do happen to agree it's a good idea:-) Cheers, S. [1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html > > 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 >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
