Re: Wikis for RFCs

2011-09-16 Thread Andrew Feren
On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user ("this way") upon user ("not always") follow ups. A W

Re: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

2011-09-29 Thread Andrew Feren
On 09/29/2011 09:18 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote: A few more thoughts on this thread. All, I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft. The reason: The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any "multiple standards" developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's sc

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Andrew Feren
On 08/06/2013 09:08 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons, reading the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that remote people see the slides at the same time as local people.

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-08 Thread Andrew Feren
Hi Keith, Thanks for clarifying. Put that way I agree 100%. -Andrew On 08/06/2013 02:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote: On 08/06/2013 11:06 AM, Andrew Feren wrote: On 08/06/2013 09:08 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: While I think getting slides in on time is great