John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It is fast looking as if the ability to sustain a large and very
>> well-attended network of interconnected remote hubs might become a
>> necessity rather than merely an appealing alternative...
> +1
> (and this will require some formal process for mike queuing at the
> "interconnected remote hubs".)
Agreed.
Don't cancel SFO; just renegotiate it for much a smaller group of west-coast
"locals". Maybe we can do this with minimal impact to the contract.
So we have 99, 100, and 101 to get all the mike queue and remote hubs working.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature