John --
As I mentioned to the chairs privately, I may well run out of time to
rev this document prior to Vancouver. If I do have time to revise it, my
plan is to incorporate feedback specifically about the draft that was
provided on the ietf@xxxxxxxx list during the six months of its initial
validity.
I'm not going to comment on any supposed interaction between the
document and your appeal until the IESG has reached consensus on a
response: doing so would necessarily presuppose an outcome (both in
disposition and rationale), which would be presumptuous on my part.
/a
On 2/27/2020 9:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Adam,
Do you plan for the new version of draft-roach-bis-documents to
reflect the IESG's (presumably pending) response to my recent
appeal? I ask because the interactions between the two might
lead to a lively discussion and hence require somewhat more time
than a simple presentation of a new iteration on the document
would require.
best,
john
--On Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:04 -0600 Pete Resnick
<resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I forgot to ask you Adam: How much time did you want on the
agenda?
pr
On 18 Jan 2020, at 16:18, Adam Roach wrote:
On 1/15/20 22:34, Pete Resnick wrote:
As the time quickly approaches for requesting a meeting for
the March IETF, your gendispatch chairs wonder if there are
agenda items for which we should schedule a meeting. Please
let us know on the gendispatch list (the Reply-To on this
message is set there) within the next two weeks if you have
any potential agenda items so we can decide if a meeting is
necessary.
GENDISPATCH chairs --
I'm planning to spin a new version of
draft-roach-bis-documents in the next few weeks, based on
the feedback that has been provided so far. I think this
would be a candidate for discussion in GENDISPATCH.
/a
