RE: [Emu] CAPWAP and HOKEY interim meetings
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Emu] CAPWAP and HOKEY interim meetings
There is an IEEE 802.1 interim in Monterey, CA 1/22 - 1/26 (most of the
rest of 802 is in London the week before). I may attend Hokey if it
doesn't conflict with 802.1 sessions I need to attend.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Clancy [mailto:clancy at cs.umd.edu]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:01 AM
> To: hokeyp at opendiameter.org; emu at ietf.org
> Subject: [Emu] CAPWAP and HOKEY interim meetings
>
> CAPWAP and HOKEY WGs,
>
> The chairs of both CAPWAP and HOKEY feel an interim meeting
> between IETF
> 67 and 68 is necessary in order to meet their respective
> milestones. Due to a likely overlap in some participants,
> consecutive, co-located meetings are suggested.
>
> The chairs propose to hold a 3-day event (1 day for HOKEY
> followed by 2 days for CAPWAP) in the San Francisco Bay area
> the week of January 22. Due to a preference of not traveling
> on weekends, meeting Tue-Thu (Jan 23-25) is suggested.
> Please send comments to the lists on the proposed schedule,
> area, preference on dates, and which meeting(s) you're likely
> to attend.
> Also please indicate any possible overlooked conflicts with
> conferences and other events.
>
> If your organization would be interested in providing a venue
> to host the event, please let us know. In particular, we are
> interested in your site's space availability, accessibility
> to visitors, guest Internet connectivity, ability to provide
> lunch, and proximity to a major airport and reasonably-priced hotels.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> t. charles clancy, ph.d. <> tcc at umd.edu <> www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.