On 08/11/16 18:40, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Job,
> At 06:47 08-11-2016, Job Snijders wrote:
>> Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into
>> regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that
>> somehow is stuck.
>
> Did the authors or Working Group address
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-12: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
On 02/12/16 20:53, James Galvin wrote:
>
> I believe this responds to Stephen Farrell’s concern in his DISCUSS vote
> and ask that he confirm it is responsive and indicate if he has any
> additional questions or concerns.
That's fine with me, thanks. I'll clear the discuss ballot
shortly.
S.
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer
Hiya,
I had a quick scan and have a couple of initial questions:
I'm working on [1] so wonder if/how those may be related, any
idea? If not, should they be?
I'm also not clear on the status of this - is this a case of
wanting to get something long-used under IETF change control
or something el
