Re: [Arcing] arcing

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