RE: Minn. meeting & draft status

I think status can be easily accomplished via the reflector and there is 
little value-add in having a in-person meeting for such discussions.  If 
there are technical issues of merit to discuss, then this warrants such a 
meeting but that is not what is being presented here.

Mike

At 12:54 PM 3/1/2005, Shah, Hemal wrote:
>I agree with Tom that we need to meet to discuss status of various WG
>action items rather than completely canceling the WG meeting. In
>addition, at this time changing the flights at the last moment will not
>be possible for many of us who were planning to attend RDDP WG.
>
>Hemal
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>Talpey, Thomas
>Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:25 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [rddp] Minn. meeting & draft status
>
>At 12:08 PM 3/1/2005, [email protected] wrote:
> >Since the WG Last call on the DDP, RDMAP and Security
> >drafts has completed without any technical issues, I
> >intend to cancel the RDDP WG meeting in Minneapolis,
> >unless there are other technical issues to discuss
>
>I think it would be a shame for folks who were in attendance
>anyway not to meet. There was only one hour on the agenda,
>and it seems that even a 10 minute review of the various WG
>action items and their status would be a good thing to place
>into minutes, for the record. Will IPS have any feedback for
>us to discuss?
>
>Tom.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rddp mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
>
>_______________________________________________
>rddp mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp