Re: Question 1 about deadlock issue

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

James M Galvin wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 May 2003, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
>     I would suggest the further amendment for clarity to change:
> 
>     >            Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must be
>     >            rejected and reported as such to the nominating committee.
> 
>     to instead read:
> 
>                         Candidates that are not confirmed under this
>                         rule must be rejected.  The resulting
>                         confirmation or rejection of each candidate must
>                         be reported to the IETF Nominating Committee.
> 
>     Is that amendment OK with folks ?
> 
> Okay with me.
> 
> Jim

Yes to both

   Brian