On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:56 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
> I know this is the wrong list, but what about people who could afford it,
> but don't want to afford it? It's not like I'm making money from
> participating and that it's just a cost of doing business. These
> discussions ran into the
On 12/11/20 9:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I concur. The fee for virtual meetings is less than half that of the
usual in-person meetings since the IETF's costs are obviously lower,
but we do need to keep the lights on. For people that can't afford to
participate otherwise, there is a
On 12/11/2020 9:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I suggest that this working group has enough of a work queue before it
that having both an interim meeting and a scheduled session at IETF
110 is certainly worth considering.
+1
Interims should be saved for times the wg has hit a wall in
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:59 AM Alexey Melnikov
wrote:
> Murray will correct me if I am wrong, but I have several comments:
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, at 12:37 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
> I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim
> meeting sooner. Interim
Hi Kurt,
Murray will correct me if I am wrong, but I have several comments:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, at 12:37 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim
> meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater
>
I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim
meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater
participation since they do not include participation fee. If there are
topics worthy of F2F discussion, why wait? If there are not, then why
charge people
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Alexey Melnikov, a
Chair of the dmarc working group.
-
Working Group Name: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting
Conformance
Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area
