I suppose best to produce the new version right now? Or should we await the outcome of that call?
Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:48 > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); Warren Kumari > Cc: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 > > Our biweekly chair call is next week, We will place this document on the > agenda at that time. > > Brgds, > G/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Behringer (mbehring) > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:45 > To: Warren Kumari > Cc: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 > > > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] > > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:38 > > [...] > > Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made > > this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile... > > > > Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if > > y'all spelt 'favor' correctly <winks and runs away> > > But we do!! (winks back) > > OPsec chairs/WG, I believe that was the last open comment on the WGLC. Is > this correct, or did I miss something? > > If correct, I'll produce a new version with the new summary, and repost. I > assume this then ends the WGLC and the doc can proceed? > > Michael > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
