Ted,
I think we have identified ways forward on this issue in this week ...
I've no idea what this means. We (possibly a different value of "we")
thought we were getting consensus around a proposal (<dcp> manditory),
some time prior to this week, e.g., last week.
We = some set of people. It's not important yet, what is important
is whether or not the WG as a whole also agrees.As to timing of meetings, I don't attend meetings held in belligerant states
during periods of belligerency. It is dangerous, it requires acts of active
cooperation with the security regimes of the belligerant state(s), and is
an endorsement of belligerency. I'd rather not.
Absence is perfectly permissible, after all the IETF is a volunteer
organization. The sentiment expressed is that it would have been
keen to have you in attendance so that we could more quickly arrive
at a common understanding of the problem. It is our fault if you
feel the need to defend your choice not to travel. (I'm *not* going
to define "our." ;))