[NRO-IANAXFER] Draft proposal differences
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Dec 23 17:23:05 CET 2014
I sent a reply on the recording in a seperate e-mail afterwards.
Please let me know if there is anything else which is still not clear
about our considerations on recordings after reading my e-mail.
(2014/12/24 1:17), Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
> Thanks for your response and for the update. I have not been able to access
> the last meeting recording which brings me to refer you to the concern I
> raised to you about recording format (mail subject: "access to recordings").
> Could you kindly provide update on that as well?
> Thanks for leadership so far.
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 23 Dec 2014 16:57, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>> Dear Seun,
>> Thank you for your comment on version control of proposals, to avoid
>> confusions on the latest draft.
>> This is good point, and was indeed discussed at the 5th call of CRISP
>> Team on 22nd Dec.
>> It is partially addressed as you can see from the NRO website which
>> identifies and marks outdated and latest drafts.
>> We are still working on keeping proposal versions and do plan to do this
>> as well.
>> (2014/12/20 14:35), Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> Dear crisp team,
>>> Thanks for all the effort so far, I just like to point a minor issue; I
>>> have seen 2 different urls to the draft proposal the one sent during the
>>> formal announcement and the one below:
>>> So in future and in order to avoid confusion since the document is not
>>> redline format, I will suggest you endeavor to maintain a single url and
>>> try to indicate in the document what draft version is being presented.
>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> ianaxfer mailing list
>>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>> ianaxfer mailing list
>> ianaxfer at nro.net
More information about the ianaxfer