Re: [Arcing] arcing

I'm not sure I have another draft in me (yet) but there is plenty to talk
about.

As for my existing draft, I'm willing to speak to it.  (Sorry for being slow
to respond, just cycling through topics.)

On 3/3/16, 12:55, "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ed,
> 
> It was approved as a nonw-WG forming BoF, based on the agenda proposed in the
> wiki https://tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki.  If there's a new draft you'd like
> discussed, please let the list know; I had already planned to ask you to
> discuss your history draft, so consider this your friendly ping on that point.
> 
> best,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> wrote:
>> Is ARCING a formal working group?  I don't see it listed on
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/.
>> 
>> On 2/26/16, 11:49, "Arcing on behalf of "IETF Meeting Session Request
>> Tool"" <arcing-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of
>> session_request_developers@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> >---------------------------------------------------------
>>> >Working Group Name: Alternative Resolution Contexts for Internet Naming
>> 
>> Perhaps the same tool is used for WGs and BoFs, hence the use of "Working
>> Group" here.  On the other hand, maybe ARCING has been made a WG.  Can't
>> tell.
>> 
>> This says it isn't chartered (found this using a web search engine, not
>> from the IETF web site), state is BoF:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/arcing/charter/
>> 
>> 
>> If this is a BoF, what's the plan for an agenda?  I ask because I have a
>> draft already but I also feel the need to document why this is a problem
>> based on hallway conversations and observations about the state of play.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Arcing mailing list
>> Arcing@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/arcing
>> 
> 

Re: [Arcing] arcing - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 95

Attachment: smime.p7s