Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc

I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim
meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater
participation since they do not include participation fee. If there are
topics worthy of F2F discussion, why wait? If there are not, then why
charge people to join a pointless meeting?

--Kurt

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM IETF Meeting Session Request Tool <
session-request@ietf.org> wrote:

>
>
> A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Alexey Melnikov,
> a Chair of the dmarc working group.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Working Group Name: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting &amp;
> Conformance
> Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area
> Session Requester: Alexey Melnikov
>
>
> Number of Sessions: 1
> Length of Session(s):  1 Hour
> Number of Attendees: 76
> Conflicts to Avoid:
>  Chair Conflict: dnsop dprive cfrg kitten emailcore
>  Technology Overlap: saag uta extra jmap cbor
>
>
>
>
>
>
> People who must be present:
>   Alexey Melnikov
>   Murray Kucherawy
>   Tim Wicinski
>   Seth Blank
>
> Resources Requested:
>
> Special Requests:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110