| Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Jim Murphy (jmurphy |
|
| Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:52:23 -0800 (PST) | |
Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote:
Puneet,
Addressing your specific list of options:
1) Continuing to bring up the removal of the MUX is simply a waste of time. The WG has decided, so let's move on please.
When was this WG decision made? Your original proposal (this thread) was made on Nov. 22, 2006 (after the IETF meeting) and we are merely discussing the merits of the proposal on the mailing list, as we should.
Thanks,
Jim
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146), (continued)
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Puneet Agarwal, January 18 2007
-
Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Abhijit Choudhury, January 18 2007
-
Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Puneet Agarwal, January 18 2007
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), January 18 2007
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Jim Murphy, January 19 2007
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), January 19 2007
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Dorothy.Gellert, January 22 2007
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Jim Murphy, January 22 2007
-
Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Puneet Agarwal, January 18 2007
- Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 224/89 (and part of 146) Puneet Agarwal, January 22 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.