IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 07 June 2019 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE84A1200B4 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=PSlTLP+x; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=iCoLrjD4
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iq8TO2W1N7Yl for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD6212011F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.49.130]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x57HsLoB025853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1559930080; x=1560016480; bh=AINR3i/UdZcbzoSQ8/wv0kCIe0lrsrCnLP6AL1R3nmM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PSlTLP+xAijwcVcxWmHpC2c3wlfUeMm/LeC9tVXMczydiFoOYxllHVZ+AfFAs0kvu yLDrzUwine2Ya9ERfoc2/hbtYzSGi3H05eldraowo6w3iqm39ocImIMrjee5hV28cx XIo0WfR6+2E23SOMHtM6oBgO9ryL3Y7MzZOxoQk4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1559930080; x=1560016480; i=@elandsys.com; bh=AINR3i/UdZcbzoSQ8/wv0kCIe0lrsrCnLP6AL1R3nmM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=iCoLrjD41IxB2xZ260i7wegxi30QLnOO5+M9OiiP0xZ+pxUyQ0QzMur7S3IhtFtKV gynieo7z7CpaTM1lxZwoVpEQdWYC3VIMBsdF8CMBnmj1E2YcmcmQU9WcV0nBrEozDQ Kqtvl1s7RA2VOoNHkLCdw15YHZo2o2Y9CanF/E1Y=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190607104702.0cf93198@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 10:53:51 -0700
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
In-Reply-To: <942E0B4F-1A9D-4154-84E4-2CDCD8876BF4@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190601204707.0bf89070@elandnews.com> <D58B591C-9140-4273-AA11-59E2EBD101FE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190604124032.0c2f0ca0@elandnews.com> <942E0B4F-1A9D-4154-84E4-2CDCD8876BF4@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/HM3r95VmX7U_IwirQsc0p-DvQFY>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:54:48 -0000

Hi Suresh,
At 07:28 PM 06-06-2019, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>Just speaking for myself here. I think this depends on how you want 
>to scope the discussion. If you can go with a fairly narrow set of 
>goals with a defined scope and
>  deliverables, I think a WG forming BoF would be a good idea. If 
> you want to explore the problem space a bit, I think a non-WG 
> forming BoF might be a better fit.

Thank you for the feedback.

The time commitment to explore the problem space would likely be too 
high for me to fit that into my current schedule.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email