just a small followup re timing I've said most of what I have to say on
this issue
--On 11. desember 2004 10:59 -0500 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think getting this into wider community review, i.e. due to
LC, is a good thing to do at this point, even while some of
us,
John C Klensin wrote:
Bert,
I'm trying to catch up on all of this after nearly two weeks in
which it was impossible to track these various threads. Now it
is merely a hard untangling process.
If you are going to use words equivalent to irrevocable, in
either this context, the ISOC payment one
Hi Avri and John,
I interpreted Harald's note differently than you did...
I took this part:
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
this issue.
To mean that Harald is _not_ starting the IETF Last Call as
--On fredag, desember 10, 2004 18:26:08 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
the note below and the general support your suggestion has
gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
is not
--On Saturday, 11 December, 2004 12:58 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.
But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a
problem as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the
02-bis you refer to) is different in any
Hi,
I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.
But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a problem as
long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the 02-bis you refer to)
is different in any substantive manner, i.e. other then editorial, it
will need to go through a
Harald,
This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
the note below and the general support your suggestion has
gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
is not draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt, as identified in the Last
Call posted yesterday afternoon, but a
Bert,
I'm trying to catch up on all of this after nearly two weeks in
which it was impossible to track these various threads. Now it
is merely a hard untangling process.
If you are going to use words equivalent to irrevocable, in
either this context, the ISOC payment one noted by Bernard, or
Me too
Brian
Scott Bradner wrote:
I can go with what Harald suggests:
Scott
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:11:21 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Consensus? Separate bank account
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
At 07:53 AM 12/09/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Do we need to make a global pass of s/account/accounts/?
I think so.
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Since I have seen quite a few agreement postings to below
posting of Harald, I have made the change as suggested by Harald
(in my working copy that is).
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday,
At 07:53 AM 12/09/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Do we need to make a global pass of s/account/accounts/?
I think so.
Done in my working copy
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I can go with what Harald suggests:
Scott
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:11:21 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Consensus? Separate bank account
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad to send out
the Last Call today as
As near as I can tell, there is no argument that IETF money or assets
should be kept for use by/on behalf of the IETF - should not be spent on
other things, and should be accounted for appropriately. The language you
reference seems to deal with various ways to phrase that. However it is
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 18:35:20 -0800 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As near as I can tell, there is no argument that IETF money or assets
should be kept for use by/on behalf of the IETF - should not be spent on
other things, and should be accounted for appropriately. The language
15 matches
Mail list logo
