Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

Joe Abley <> Wed, 13 October 2010 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9810D3A6A77; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.593
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WziFgdZY8rmh; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987023A6A1D; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P6949-0004iN-JX for; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:40:53 +0000
Received: from [2001:4900:1:392:213:20ff:fe1b:3bfe] ( by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P6947-0004hg-A4 for; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:40:51 +0000
Received: from [] ( by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P6941-0003ev-SH; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:40:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joe Abley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:40:44 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <>

On 2010-10-13, at 17:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> I note, however, that we have a number of drafts that have been
> lingering for some time.  This is mostly due to inertia.  Olafur and I
> therefore propose to use the extra time as a breakout session to nail
> down whatever changes are still needed in those lingering drafts.  If
> we can get five committed reviewers for each document in the room, and
> get the necessary text compromises settled, we can then immediately
> send them through WGLC, and we would clear our docket.  We think this
> would be a productive use of the time.

<> has the following which are not stuck upstream of the working group:


Did you mean just those two, or also others?