On 19-jul-2005, at 16:19, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site
terms and operational efficiencies when a previous site is re-used.
Minneapolis has been a useful demonstration of this latter point,
I think.
Since nobody but Foretec has seen the Minneapolis contracts, we
have no idea whether that's true or not.
Any particular reason for this? A general lack of nosiness doesn't
seem a likely reason, so there must be more to it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf