Re: [gnso-sl-wg] two of the assigned drafts are attached
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE> <P>we could put in the background section, perhaps? it woudl be good to document, and as you can see in the transcript, a good deal of discussion took place.<BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif"> <HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1> <DIV></DIV>From: <I>Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx></I><BR>To: <I>"Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>CC: <I>GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx</I><BR>Subject: <I>Re: [gnso-sl-wg] two of the assigned drafts are attached</I><BR>Date: <I>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:20:11 -0400</I><BR>>hi,<BR>><BR>>i am looking for the rules in the rfcs as we speak. and while i <BR>>don't pretend to be an expert, i figure that that is a start. if <BR>>there is ambiguity in the rfcs, then we can form a written question <BR>>for the experts.<BR>><BR>>a.<BR>><BR>>On 30 apr 2007, at 15.12, Marilyn Cade wrote:<BR>><BR>>>He also asked that I ask the group how it was intended to deal with <BR>>> '-', which was discussed with the two technical experts last <BR>>>week, but isn't documented, except in the transcript. I reviewed <BR>>>the transcript, and since it was Avri's question, wondered if she <BR>>>might want to ensure that the discussion is captured in the body <BR>>>of the report in some way, or footnoted on the recommendations <BR>>>page, or included in the write up on 'symbols'.<BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html> |