John, The short answer is "Yes" - identifying meeting locations and times 18 to 24 months out is a plausible target.
Site ID is less a problem than Sponsor commitment, but the answer remains "Yes". Ray Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle down over time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting times and locations known 18 months to two years out" status that has been the target for some years? Or, to put it differently, without any unreasonable expectations about how quickly it is possible to get back onto that basis, is it still the target and do you consider that target plausible? On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:10:58 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --On Friday, 15 July, 2005 11:59 +0200 Brian E Carpenter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Clint, > > > > Firstly, please note that this is now part of the IETF > > Administrative > > Ditrector's responsibility. I've put him on copy. > > > > Second, we all agree that locations should be chosen > and > > announced > > as early possible. > > > > Third, there is a very high probability that IETF65 > will be at > > a > > US location and we have a host in view - but until that > is > > fully > > settled I don't think we can say in public. I'm sure > Ray will > > tell > > us as soon as possible. > > Brian and Ray, > > Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle > down over > time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting > times and > locations known 18 months to two years out" status that > has been > the target for some years? Or, to put it differently, > without > any unreasonable expectations about how quickly it is > possible > to get back onto that basis, is it still the target and > do you > consider that target plausible? > > john > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
