Hi,
On Mar 3, 2013, at 21:14, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
b) have demonstrated IETF management expertise (current/former WG chair)
c) have time
On 03/03/2013 20:14, Michael Richardson wrote:
Eric == Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com writes:
Eric There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither
Eric of which I think is true, but we should consider the
Eric possibility. The first is the TSV is too narrow a
On 3/3/13 11:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Incidentally, while mulling this over, it occurred to me that RFC 3777
doesn't (I believe) talk about conflict of interest within the
confirming bodies. I do recall members of the IAB and the ISOC Board
recusing themselves from confirmation
The time commitment is a very good point, Dave.
If we want to also involve people who do not work for big corporations (or get
otherwise sponsored by big organizations) then the idea of having ADs review
every document may need to get a bit relaxed. Today, almost all of the ADs (and
IAB
HI,
the recordings are on-line again. Please contact t...@meetecho.com should you
experience further issues.
Thanks,
Simon
Il giorno 03/mar/2013, alle ore 18:09, Simon Leinen ha scritto:
Simon Pietro Romano writes:
we're actually moving the (Meetecho-operated) recordings server to a
Dave said what I was thinking, but with many more words. *We* have put
ourselves in a box. If we work the way we worked when we published 100 RFC's a
year, we are sure to fail. As a side note, there are over 100 drafts in the
RFC Editor queue this instant.
As Dave and Hannes have pointed
+1
As recently as ten years ago the third fastest supercomputer offered
12 Teraflops and 12Tb of storage. Today the same can be bought for
$6,000.
A Raspberry Pi casts $35 and has the same performance as the
workstation class of ten years ago.
Any proposal that says we should lock ourselves in
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation
is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it.
Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it
On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want
There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it,
obviously.
What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on
to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the directorates more into the
process. It is thinking like that, how to do things
One item to consider is to lower the work load of the AD, in particular
in reviewing docs towards of the end of projects. Issues and dilemmas
are piled on. I think one approach to lowering appeals, for example,
is to address unresolved delicate WG issues much faster, in particular
the
On 03/03/2013 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Clearly the NomCom felt it was between a rock and a hard place; I just
want to assert the principle that balancing both managerial and technical
abilities is within NomCom's remit.
Brian
There is a subtly in the manager vs technical expert
Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to
want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it,
obviously.
What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on
to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 03/03/2013 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Clearly the NomCom felt it was between a rock and a hard place; I just
want to assert the principle that balancing both managerial and technical
abilities is within NomCom's
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to
make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also
has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward
the ITU model.
I think tasking the IESG to look at how to reduce the time commitment
would be an incredibly good idea. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with
the community giving the IESG clear guidance that we'd like them to
solve that problem than with the community trying to come up with the
solution.
That
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 15:57, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote:
Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely
on volunteers.
We're _all_ volunteers!
right, but ADs are basically full-time volunteers of whom the community expects
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
as an area director, it was not the technical load which was hard, and i
read every single draft (draft load has grown since). it was the social
and political 'work'.
One possibility might be to split TSV into two areas, so the workload
on the TSV ADs (both
+1, if anything we need to move away from the ITU model.
/Loa
Skickat från min iPhone
4 mar 2013 kl. 16:26 skrev Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com:
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to
make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs
On Mar 4, 2013, at 16:42, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com
wrote:
One possibility might be to split TSV into two areas, so the workload
on the TSV ADs (both technical and social) is reduced.
Doesn't help much. Management of ones area takes some time, but at least as
much time is spend on
+1 to Mary's comments.. few words in line..
Elwyn Davies
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 09:11 -0600, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com
wrote:
There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it,
obviously.
What I find
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
At 07:38 AM 3/3/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Under the IETF role it is very easy of WG chairs to ignore
minority participants of large communities.
I've come to the conclusion - possibly wrong - that you're lacking
some basic understanding in
On 3/4/2013 7:26 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to
make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also
has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/13 6:38 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars
l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger
ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
I'd like to live in an IETF where we have room for people who do want
to spend a lot of time on all those issues as well as a place where ADs
can take responsibility for the technical work in their area and
minimize
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:42:22AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
long-term health of Internet. If that leads to fewer working groups
producing higher-quality output, so be it.
I'd go further and say, That's a bonus.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Russ,
I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we are short
of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint technically expert ADs
who are not deep experts in the specific area. It's a practical
matter.
Regards
Brian
On 04/03/2013 15:26, Russ Housley wrote:
The leadership in the
There is technical work other than late-stage document reviews. We
might get a larger return on investment if community members who are
temporarily serving in the area director role were to spend more of
their combined technical and management talent on making sure that our
working groups are
My humble suggestion is to go with a single AD for Transport Area. I think
it could work.
Regards,
Behcet
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
Dear IETF Community,
The 2012-2013 IETF nomination process has not yet filled the Transport
Area Director position
Brian Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we
Brian are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint
Brian technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the
Brian specific area. It's a practical matter.
I actually think expecting ADs to learn a
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Brian Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we
Brian are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint
Brian technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the
Brian
Dave:
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is
to make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG
also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a
step toward the
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Dave:
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is
to make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG
also has a
On 03/04/13 12:51, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com allegedly
wrote:
[MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with
little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his
email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with
proven technical skills in
changed the subject ... and added a cc to some that might not follow ietf@
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I
I've composed some simple web browser search plugins to make it easy
to locate ITEF information. These are expressed in one of the
portable search plugin formats.
For Mozilla, you put these in the 'searchplugins' folder (which is
~/.mozilla/firefox/.default/searchplugins on Linux).
Dale
rgensen == rgensen Roger writes:
rgensen I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will
rgensen answer in an educational way - Why is congestion control so
rgensen important? And where does it apply? ... :-)
The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport
On 3/4/2013 10:20 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an
educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where
does it apply? ... :-)
Ouch. Because without it (as we learned the hard way in the late 1980s) \
the Internet
Mary:
On 3/4/13 6:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with
little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his
email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with
proven technical skills in another area that also is
Sam:
So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and
demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly
value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the
AD joins the IESG.
We mostly agree. We both agree that strong technical
Sam,
On 3/4/13 6:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part
of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on
the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area
covered. In some cases, this was solved by
Eliot == Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com writes:
Eliot Sam,
Eliot On 3/4/13 6:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Eliot We're here because of the extremely specialized nature of
Eliot transport. PhDs who specialize in it have gotten it wrong.
Eliot One such person drove Van Jacobson into
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
Mary:
On 3/4/13 6:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with
little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his
email. What some of us have been proposing is that
And, I continue to support Sam's position as well.
To me the question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the
position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise that
his being sought than to leave the position unfilled. Having dealt
with the exact same issue when I was
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes:
Mary And, I continue to support Sam's position as well. To me the
Mary question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the
Mary position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise
Mary that his being
As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the
Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt
I have a general question for the community as to whether they find
such reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom
Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
Russ Sam:
So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and
demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not
highly value knowing all the things going on in a specific area
at the time the AD
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between
limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is
more likely to be able to learn about it?
Margaret
On Mar 4, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Mary == Mary
There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last week during
the weekend. Sprinklers came on.
If my computer had either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water
(luckily neither happened) the draft would have been lost.
I still fail to see why the solution is to ban
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which
one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious.
It is
On 3/4/2013 1:48 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited
knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to
be able to learn about it?
Carefully considering the tradeoffs and
Hi Mary,
At 12:31 04-03-2013, Mary Barnes wrote:
I have a general question for the community as to whether they find
such reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom
chairs to produce these? While this is not listed as a requirement in
I found your report useful.
I will
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that
Hi, Russ,
Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport?
Allison
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control
On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to
want to fix
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the
role has grown
over the years.
Alia
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger
Considering that mainly WG chairs are document shepherds (*), that would
be a good start.
(*) but this is absolutely not a requirement. See
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/document-shepherds.html
Regards, Benoit
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the
role has
John Levine wrote:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
There should be an immutable requirement that any alternative format
MUST NOT increase the size by more than a factor of two compared to
ASCII text.
So you're saying you're unalterably opposed to the RFC editor providing
PDF,
On 3/4/2013 2:31 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the
Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt
I have a general question for the community as to whether they find
such reports useful and
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:48:53AM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
Limiting the waste of network bandwidth seems like a desirable goal,
no matter how I look at it, from the waiting for download perspective
as well as the environmental impact.
All that requires is the availability of a small file, not
Bob Braden wrote:
On 3/4/2013 10:20 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an
educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where
does it apply? ... :-)
Ouch. Because without it (as we learned the hard way in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last
week during the weekend. Sprinklers came on. If my computer had
either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water (luckily
neither happened)
On 3/4/2013 3:07 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
There are qualified people in the industry, and that's where most of
the past ADs have come from. In the last few years, it's been
increasingly harder to get them to step forward, because their
employers are reluctant to let them spend the time. I
I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :)
-=R
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
There was a fire in the office, three desks away
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Roberto Peon wrote:
I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :)
Source control, assuming the traditional server implementation, is one
form of backup solution ... but I agree, the requirement is a backup
solution where the backup is protected
Mary:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be
obvious. It is
No disagreement. It is merely *a* way, and, popping back to the original
topic, it is better to allow the submission and deny the visibility than to
disallow the submission
-=R
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Roberto Peon wrote:
I
On Mar 4, 2013, at 19:44, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport
protocols that need to do congestion control. Further, the (current)
split of work means that all of the groups that need congestion
oversight would be
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 04/03/2013 20:31, Mary Barnes wrote:
As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the
Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt
In fairness, there were reports to plenary, although short on
NOTICE: Daylight Savings Time begins in the United States on Sunday, March 10,
please remember to set your clocks ahead one hour!
86th IETF Meeting
Orlando, FL, USA
March 10-15, 2013
Host: Comcast and NBCUniversal
Meeting venue: Caribe Royale http://www.cariberoyale.com
Register online at:
The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets'
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-07.txt as Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'MPLS-TP Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions'
(draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-08.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Brainpool Elliptic Curves for the IKE Group Description Registry'
(draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-04.txt) as Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact
The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'WebFinger'
draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-10.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Flow Identity Extension for HELD'
(draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-02.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Geographic Location/Privacy Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Robert Sparks and Gonzalo Camarillo.
A
76 matches
Mail list logo
