I'd be happy to have a call to discuss this and see if we can all come to some agreement. However, if we don't then this probably does need some kind of virtual interim or a meeting in Chicago.
-Ekr On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:31 PM, 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
