John,
The short answer is "Yes" - identifying meeting locations
and times 18 to 24 months out is a plausible target.
Site ID is less a problem than Sponsor commitment, but the
answer remains "Yes".
Ray
Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle down
over time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting
times and locations known 18 months to two years out"
status that has been the target for some years? Or, to put
it differently, without any unreasonable expectations about
how quickly it is possible to get back onto that basis, is
it still the target and do you consider that target
plausible?
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:10:58 -0400
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Friday, 15 July, 2005 11:59 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Clint,
Firstly, please note that this is now part of the IETF
Administrative
Ditrector's responsibility. I've put him on copy.
Second, we all agree that locations should be chosen
and
announced
as early possible.
Third, there is a very high probability that IETF65
will be at
a
US location and we have a host in view - but until that
is
fully
settled I don't think we can say in public. I'm sure
Ray will
tell
us as soon as possible.
Brian and Ray,
Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle
down over
time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting
times and
locations known 18 months to two years out" status that
has been
the target for some years? Or, to put it differently,
without
any unreasonable expectations about how quickly it is
possible
to get back onto that basis, is it still the target and
do you
consider that target plausible?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf