-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful for
people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for
Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers
beneath them and their users, for example.
That doesn't make for a "has to", but it seems like a good reason to
"choose to", from my perspective.
On Nov 29, 2007, at 6:00 AM, <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com> wrote:
Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at
least half of participants are from Europe or Asia.
Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
Why can't the IETF hold partial meetings in Europe and Asia?
This would probably mean more IETF meetings but nobody has to
go to all of them.
Essentially, I am suggesting that WGs with a lot of participants
in Europe or Asia should be able to band together and hold
local IETF meetings leveraging the same IETF secretariat services
as the full meetings.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFHTp9rbjEdbHIsm0MRAml5AJ4/3KWm3YqTs7AEoqCFc/dGAj3CzQCgmX6K
DJZ/qBt256GVy1NdYAwC2SU=
=UnJw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf