[Ietf-not43] Next steps

[Andrew Newton]

Well, I'm not stuck on it... and you raise a valid point.  So either way =
is=20
fine by me.

On Tuesday 05 November 2002 07:42 pm, Ted Hardie wrote:
> I'm actually hoping to focus that discussion on the process itself (do
> we want to write seperate eval drafts, a combo eval draft, maintain an
> "issues list" matrix, etc.), rather than focusing on the proposals.
> I initially put it first in order to help reinforce the idea that
> this was about the process.  I can do that in any order, of course,
> and there are elements of draft structure (the splitting of the
> proposals into multiple documents, e.g) that do relate here.
>
> Thoughts from other working group members here?
> =09=09=09=09=09regards,
> =09=09=09=09=09=09Ted Hardie
>
> > Ted Hardie wrote:
> > > 1) Agenda Bash, 5 mins (Chair)
> > > 2) Milestone & Charter Review, 10 mins (Chair)
> > > 3) Discussion of evaluation process, 60 mins (Chair)
> >
> > I'd prefer these two before #3.  A little knowledge of the difference=
s
> > between versions may also give insight to the evaluation process.
> >
> > > 4) IRIS Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author)
> > > 5) LW Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author?)
> >
> > -andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43