excellent. thank you, best, corinne
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi Corinne, Ted,
At 01:48 19-04-2016, Corinne Cath wrote:
Just a quick question: are you intending on providing feedback to the
IAOC? If so, maybe it makes sense to coordinate a bit in order to prevent a
duplication of entries? Or will it be useful if multiple people point out
the same themes?
The IAOC Chair requested comments about a future IETF meeting in Paris
(France),
Montreal (Canada) or Copenhagen (Denmark) as the IAOC is considering
whether the IETF can have a meeting in any of those countries. It probably
doesn't make much of a difference whether there is duplication of entries
except to the person(s) who will be reading the messages to
venue-selection(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org to extract the points of concern.
At 05:02 19-04-2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
The IETF has a very strong tradition of commenting at length on the topic
at hand and hoping either that IETF leadership will spend the time to
review the whole thread and extract the salient points from it, or give up
in despair. So what you are seeing here is very much the IETF tradition.
Asking people to do better probably won't work, although it never hurts to
try.
I read the 36 messages in this thread. Although some of the content is
interesting, it does not look like the messages are directly related to the
subject line. Even though two Area Directors read some of the messages,
the discussion is on an unmanaged thread. It is more of an effort instead
of a problem to extract the arguments made on this thread. The problem is
what to suggest given that they may be related to multiple IETF policies.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy