Michael Richardson writes:
[[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 808B70FBDDD0DD65 Michael Richardson
]]
I think you'll all be happier with a virtual interim meeting with no conflicts.
We can now use meetecho even.
It has been my (admittedly limited) experience that the IETF meeti
I think you'll all be happier with a virtual interim meeting with no conflicts.
We can now use meetecho even.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Benjamin Kaduk writes:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:26:00AM +0300, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Christian Hopps writes:
> > On Jun 27, 2021, at 10:30 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 2021, at 05:04, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >> I don’t see ipsecme scheduled at IETF 111, is there no meeting?
I
Hi,
On 6/28/21 1:23 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
Hi,
I think document is mostly ready. Few observations:
- FWIW I think that Dan's efforts to make draft's language less speculative and
more concrete
are valid and should be reflected in the document.
- Is it OK that the intended status is
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:26:00AM +0300, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Christian Hopps writes:
> > > On Jun 27, 2021, at 10:30 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > >> On Jun 27, 2021, at 05:04, Christian Hopps wrote:
> > >> I don’t see ipsecme scheduled at IETF 111, is there no meeting?
>
> I was too busy befo
Christian Hopps writes:
> > On Jun 27, 2021, at 10:30 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 2021, at 05:04, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >> I don’t see ipsecme scheduled at IETF 111, is there no meeting?
I was too busy before my vacation and forgot to do it before I left
sailing.
> > I hope that
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021, Valery Smyslov wrote:
I think document is mostly ready. Few observations:
- FWIW I think that Dan's efforts to make draft's language less speculative and
more concrete
are valid and should be reflected in the document.
I did change the wording to remove the quantifiers
Hi,
I think document is mostly ready. Few observations:
- FWIW I think that Dan's efforts to make draft's language less speculative and
more concrete
are valid and should be reflected in the document.
- Is it OK that the intended status is Standards Track? Shouldn't it be BCP?
- The draft
