And now I’m caught up enough to see that this was already done; thanks!
Back to dayjob firefighting, see you all Friday!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 23 Feb 2021, at 06:57, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
>
> Didn’t manage to get this done yesterday. since we’re still in
> working-the-queue mode (w
Didn’t manage to get this done yesterday. since we’re still in
working-the-queue mode (we’ll be discussing PRs and the working copy) IMO it
makes more sense to publish post-interim, I.e. IETF Monday.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 20 Feb 2021, at 15:22, Kyle Rose wrote:
>
>
> My PR had been rebas
My PR had been rebased against the head of master, so I just ff-merged it
and pushed. Only #728 is left.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 9:06 AM Michael Welzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IMO yes, we can merge these two PRs and go ahead. I’d appreciate if
> someone who’s a little less clumsy than me with the toolc
Hi,
IMO yes, we can merge these two PRs and go ahead. I’d appreciate if someone
who’s a little less clumsy than me with the toolchain could do the actual
submission (recently, Tommy) - but if need be, I can make it happen too.
Cheers,
Michael
> On Feb 19, 2021, at 6:33 PM, Theresa Enghardt w
Dear authors of the TAPS Interface draft,
I just wanted to check in on whether we think we'll be able to publish a
new revision of draft-ietf-taps-interface before the draft deadline next
Monday and the upcoming interim next Friday?
As far as I can see, there's two outstanding PRs on this dra
