[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP

From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
Cc: lisp at ietf.org
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:51 -0400
In-reply-to: <tsl8wf4r6rx.fsf at mit.edu>
References: <tsl8wf4r6rx.fsf at mit.edu>

Do we actually need two sessions if one of them is going to conflictwith the RRG? Or will we have enough people missing that it would bebetter to just have a single session?


Margaret

On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:



So far the news is not encouraging for moving LISP away from the RRG.

Darrel and I are working on structuring the agenda to minimize impact
if people need to skip the Friday session in order to attend the RRG.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP
  - From: Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP
  - From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis)

References:
- [lisp] Update on moving LISP
  - From: Sam Hartman

Prev by Date: [lisp] Update on moving LISP
Next by Date: Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP
Previous by thread: [lisp] Update on moving LISP
Next by thread: Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.