Subject: [GGIE] No GGIE BoF at IETF 98

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:11:45 -0500

Hi,

FYI and to close the loop on this iteration — the IESG has DECLINED 
our request for a GGIE BoF at IETF 98.

For those of us who think there is a discussion to be had here, the 
discussion will continue to be had.

Thanks,

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:19:29 -0500

> discussion will continue to be had.

For whatever it's worth, my impression is that there _is_ a discussion
to be had here, but that the problems themselves have not been aired
fully.  Perhaps some time in Chicago would allow a clearer problem
statement that would be conducive to a future bof?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:04:06 +0000

Indeed, I would love to get an informal BoF/discussion on next steps while in Chicago.

Too bad though :-(

From: GGIE <[email-masked]> on behalf of Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday 15 February 2017 at 22:11
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [GGIE] No GGIE BoF at IETF 98

Hi,

FYI and to close the loop on this iteration — the IESG has DECLINED our request for a GGIE BoF at IETF 98.

For those of us who think there is a discussion to be had here, the discussion will continue to be had.

Thanks,

Leslie.

--

________________________________

Leslie Daigle

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>