From: brashear@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (Philip Brashear)
Subject: Re: demise of ajpo?
Date: 1997/07/28
Date: 1997-07-28T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ri2d9$kbo@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dewar.869953226@merv
In article <dewar.869953226@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>We assume that the delay is just because there were a lot of validations
>at the last minute (June 30 was the last day for ACVC 2.0.1 validations,
>and we know of a lot of validations in those last cople weeks).
>
Minor correction, and a little secondhand information: The last day to START
an ACVC 2.1 validation was July 5, 1997. Any validation effort that began
on-site testing by that date was permitted to complete. Several validations
fell into those categories, and their certificate requests were not submitted
to the AJPO/AdaIC until later. Since the AdaIC received NO certificate
requests during June, the decision was made to delay the July update to the
VCL until those requests were complete. It should appear any day now.
The AdaIC is operated by IITRI under contract to the AJPO. AJPO funding has
not yet dried up. I wish I knew more than that.
Phil Brashear
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-07-28 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <33CE894F.41C6@hso.link.com>
1997-07-26 0:00 ` demise of ajpo? Robert Dewar
1997-07-28 0:00 ` Philip Brashear [this message]
1997-07-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-07-31 0:00 ` Philip Brashear
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox