IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] Closing on comments to section 5

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 10 March 2017 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AA8129952 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:41:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 fwhGhsIekWyR for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D4511298CC for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795A8BEBE; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:41:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQi73F0iceE6; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:41:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBDA3BE4D; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:41:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1489149663; bh=9w61bwaPC4gudhSLcSyi2e4hzgyww8TeUpw9qnDY3c8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=rK811PqsJdh+Gw2LoTeq3YqT6m3SQeSzxc2+hTDo+L3vfjgMvcVjYJTyGbBAl0HQk Mf8ezPMqq2I7pssK626O5jT/pFPJp5wpvmk58mI3bWR0Sgk9SqltQJVCPis82FgQfW 1LIEw5p6B43UGVqc24bv1ENnHfuKaE8vyls5SOxg=
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <9139334c-9c5e-814d-4299-c6f5950039b8@cs.tcd.ie> <f9b2a33d-db49-54a0-a657-be58a08ff021@labn.net> <a1a08b89-9088-07e0-d878-2c171c04602b@cs.tcd.ie> <acc6e92e-954d-0dd5-47bf-d2ffb12756dc@labn.net> <83c13799-43cd-5114-17f0-18f0a87e21fc@labn.net>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <86ae8fd8-1394-aa57-ddb8-55ee01301a11@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:41:02 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <83c13799-43cd-5114-17f0-18f0a87e21fc@labn.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6kd2DfHCaM6wJ6wWVrkdDHPtV1v7xP0pe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/9RApAAYQH-n72KOWej0CcQXkDqw>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Closing on comments to section 5
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:41:07 -0000


On 10/03/17 12:34, Lou Berger wrote:
> The specific text I propose is:
> 
>          This section is intended to define current practice, as it
>          should be today, but such guidelines will likely need to evolve
>          over time.  The IAOC may change these guidelines when needed by
>          publishing updated guidelines and following the normal IETF
>          consensus process.
> 

Looks fine to me thanks,
S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email