Re: [earlywarning] status?

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB25F3A68F3 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.728
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.871, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ja6Rp7HQpTf8 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34EB3A67B4 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAMqgLEyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACfbnGlGpo3hSUEg3E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,522,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="220568719"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2010 21:08:57 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com ([10.21.77.70]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o61L8vRc016706; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:08:57 GMT
Message-Id: <201007012108.o61L8vRc016706@sj-core-5.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:08:56 -0500
To: Robert Sparks <RjS@nostrum.com>, earlywarning@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3DB12EF7-6C0A-4E0B-9D14-9A35F94E2308@nostrum.com>
References: <4591CC46-2EB3-4C92-BFA3-FEF94C47DB28@g11.org.uk> <EF1A111B-8447-4742-AB7C-22F41E901F9D@bbn.com> <ED5C3A95-8483-4450-A4BD-A62AB8C96AE7@nostrum.com> <3DB12EF7-6C0A-4E0B-9D14-9A35F94E2308@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [earlywarning] status?
X-BeenThere: earlywarning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for Authority-to-Individuals \(Early Warning\) Emergency " <earlywarning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning>
List-Post: <mailto:earlywarning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:08:46 -0000

Robert

Thanks for putting in the effort on this, and updating us. That said, 
is there any way this pre-WG can meet in Maastricht, or do we have to 
wait until Beijing?

James

At 01:50 PM 7/1/2010, Robert Sparks wrote:

>I don't believe we need another BoF and am working on getting the 
>working group chartered.
>I am taking this to the IESG. Unless I encounter something 
>unexpected, it will go out for external review before Maastricht.
>
>RjS
>
>On Jul 1, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>
>>I think the charter has been submitted to the IESG, and is waiting 
>>on action from the ADs.
>>
>>
>>On Jul 1, 2010, at 1:05 PM, ken carlberg wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>given the latest charter that was circulated around, does anyone 
>>>know if there was an attempt for another BoF, or to establish a WG 
>>>for this effort?
>>>
>>>-ken
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>earlywarning mailing list
>>><mailto:earlywarning@ietf.org>earlywarning@ietf.org
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>
>_______________________________________________
>earlywarning mailing list
>earlywarning@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning