Another '+1' from me. I see the benefits in publishing reports, and I don't object to cleaning up code-points or allocated resources so long is there is _very_ careful review before hand.
.. but rushing through this now, could do more harm later. T. On 20/04/12 10:01 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <m...@cloudmark.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lixia >> Zhang >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:48 PM >> To: SM >> Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments >> >>>> The IESG would welcome your thoughts on this draft before they >>>> approve the final text on April 26th. >>> >>> Could the IESG defer approval by a month for the case study? >> >> I would like to second this suggestion >> (or did IESG have any specific reason to rush?) > > +1. > > -MSK
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
