On 03/08/2013 01:44 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Can you point out what is unclear?
margaret asked Russ whether we were talking about the future of the area
or n whether we were talking about requirements/expertise nomcom should
use for this year. After reading your message I still don't
Sam,
On 03/07/2013 04:41 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Martin == Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu writes:
Martin Hi Margaret, I will answer as the agenda below is out of the
Martin TSVAREA session.
Martin On 03/07/2013 03:21 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi
Can you point out what is unclear?
margaret asked Russ whether we were talking about the future of the area
or n whether we were talking about requirements/expertise nomcom should
use for this year. After reading your message I still don't understand
which it is.
On Mar 7, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Unfortunately, Sam, your model is simply wrong.
The IESG defines the job requirements. The Nomcom selects according to those
criteria.
I'm been in a number of Nomcom's that wished for some flexibility concerning
job
On Mar 7, 2013, at 07:55, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
Really ? You don't think a good AD should primarily look for factual evidence
(lab, simulation, interop, ..) results produced by others to judge whether
sufficient work was done to proof that the known entry critera are met
Hi Russ,
On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
The rest of your question ought to be discussed at the TSVAREA meeting in
Orlando.
I have looked at the agenda of the TSV Area Open Meeting (on Wednesday from
9:00am to 11:30am), and it includes the following
PS.: I just spent a day at CeBIT. One guy there reported to that he has seen
35000 active devices on his WiFi snooper.
I'm not quite sure what that means, but he seemed to be implying at a
specific point in time.
Go congestion control that. And then prove that your solution works.
Bear
Hi Margaret,
I will answer as the agenda below is out of the TSVAREA session.
On 03/07/2013 03:21 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Russ,
On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
wrote:
The rest of your question ought to be discussed at the TSVAREA
meeting in Orlando.
Btw: RFC3777 3.7.2 seems to define only the criteria to be applied by
NomCom, not for the confirming body.
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:21:41AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Russ,
On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
The rest of your question ought
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
PS.: I just spent a day at CeBIT. One guy there reported to that he has
seen 35000 active devices on his WiFi snooper.
I'm not quite sure what that means, but he seemed to be implying at a
specific point in time.
Go
Martin == Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu writes:
Martin Hi Margaret, I will answer as the agenda below is out of the
Martin TSVAREA session.
Martin On 03/07/2013 03:21 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Russ,
On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Russ Housley
Sam,
Can we please stop the hairsplitting ?
It is not the IESG's fault if you feel that the nomcom is taking the IESG
input as absolute software style 'requirements' as opposed to often more
lightly interpreted 'job requirements' as desirable from the IESG's
perspective. Please take that
David == David Kessens david.kess...@nsn.com writes:
David Sam,
David Can we please stop the hairsplitting ?
David It is not the IESG's fault if you feel that the nomcom is
David taking the IESG input as absolute software style
David 'requirements' as opposed to often more
Sam,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:32:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
I don't think there is hair splitting going on here; I think the issues
that are being raised are quite real and important. It's not the IESG's
fault if the nomcom does x. It is the IESG's fault if the IESG takes on
tasks
:gs/nomcom/nomcom process/
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:40:32AM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
Sam,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:32:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
I don't think there is hair splitting going on here; I think the issues
that are being raised are quite real and important.
On 3/7/2013 10:32 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
David == David Kessens david.kess...@nsn.com writes:
David Can we please stop the hairsplitting ?
David It is not the IESG's fault if you feel that the nomcom is
David taking the IESG input as absolute software style
David
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave I agree it's not hairsplitting and that it is vitally
Dave important.
Dave Unfortunately, Sam, your model is simply wrong.
Dave The IESG defines the job requirements. The Nomcom selects
Dave according to those criteria.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
The IESG defines the job requirements. The Nomcom selects according to those
criteria.
I'm been in a number of Nomcom's that wished for some flexibility concerning
job requirements, but each of these Nomcoms was very clear that it did not
have a
Cameron Byrne wrote:
In the 3GPP case of GSM/UMTS/LTE, the wireless network will never drop
the packet, by design.
According to the end to end argument, that's simply impossible,
because intermediate equipments holding packets not confirmed
by the next hop may corrupt the packets or suddenly
/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
[mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
Sent: 06 March 2013 11:37
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area
Director
l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
3GPP has to never drop a packet because it's doing zero-header
compression.
has to never? Even though it must, when it goes down.
Lose a bit, lose everything.
You totally deny FEC. Wow!!!
And ROHC is an IETF product.
I'm pretty sure the saving on headers is
A few personal thoughts follows. For the record this is completely at the
general level, I have no inside knowledge about the nomination process.
I am of the opinion that ADs should not be selected based on them being rare
super experts. The ability to learn, as Sam pointed out, is perhaps
Hi Jari,
On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
And I think we should have a broader view about this than just updating the
requirements for the seat. There are a couple of other aspects to consider as
well. First, perhaps the way that we have organised TSV is
Margaret,
However, I question the wisdom of choosing to work on this issue _right now_
in the middle of the nomcom selection process, rather than choosing the best
candidates we can and working on this problem for next year, or for future
years. It doesn't seem likely that there are
On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we
are doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to
me…
I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we
At 08:50 AM 3/6/2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take.
I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we
should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a
reorganisation would be a bad
On 3/5/2013 2:52 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
While the IETF is unique in many ways, the staff-volunteer issue
isn't all that unique. Many organizations face this. As one example,
organizations like IEEE and ACM struggle with this. (For example,
they have, over the years, delegated many
Hi Mike,
At 08:44 06-03-2013, Michael StJohns wrote:
I would suggest that it's probably time to re-convene the how do we
select people working group. Given the number of issues - recall,
IAOC, this, ineligible others - we've encountered lately, I don't
think just cutting and pasting a new
Martin,
An article like this is the best reason why we should never finally resolve the
buffer bloat issue: Doing that would take away the opportunity for
generations of researcher to over and over regurgitate the same proposed
improvements and gain PhDs in the process.
I mean the Internet wold
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:52:56AM +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
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
+1 +1 +1
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 08:24:58PM +, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/03/13 15:14, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca allegedly
wrote:
To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
(I just want to
Dear IAB and NomCom 2012,
In a message dated February 6, the NomCom Chair requested feedback
from the IETF Community for the TSV Area Director position. In a
message dated March 3, the IETF Chair mentioned that it might be that
no candidate has yet been found that meets the specific
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 03:55:39PM +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
only if the Y directorate reviews all IDs going through the IESG. Which in
itself is a scaling issue. It may work for some topics, but things will fall
through the cracks for various reasons.
IMO congestion control is important
Really ? You don't think a good AD should primarily look for factual evidence
(lab, simulation, interop, ..) results produced by others to judge whether
sufficient work was done to proof that the known entry critera are met
(like no congestion cllapse) - instead of trying to judge those solely
by
Roger,
On 3/4/13 7:20 PM, 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? ... :-)
That basic question is a very important one to ask from time to time.
Others have
-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alia Atlas
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:12 AM
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: John Leslie; IETF IETF
Subject: Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the role
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
To: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:26 PM
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes:
Mary And, I continue to
Hi Dave,
On 03/04/2013 11:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
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
Hi Tom,
On 03/05/2013 11:38 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message - From: Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu To: Mary Barnes
mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com Cc: Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, March
04, 2013 8:26 PM
Mary == Mary Barnes
Brian,
On 03/03/2013 03:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lars,
Let's try that statement parametrised:
*Someone* on the IESG needs to understand X.
I think there are many plausible values of X, certainly including
congestion control. But what do we do when, for some value of X,
there is no
Mary,
On 03/03/2013 05:32 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Lars,
Do you not have individuals in the directorate that are experts on
congestion control (that aren't document authors) that can review for
technical sanity of the proposal? ISTM that some of the TSV nominees
We have individuals in the
- Original Message -
From: Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:13 AM
Hi Tom,
On 03/05/2013 11:38 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message - From:
Wales No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
Rex
Sent: 05 March 2013 00:42
To: bra...@isi.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area
Director)
Bob Braden wrote
? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area
Director)
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a wireless network, where packets can be lost without
On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:43, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
but I am positing that for most
of the IETF, congestion control is a solved topic and little expertise
is needed
I have seen too many WGs trying to build lightweight UDP-based application
protocols that do not correctly back off
Ah, the 'but security, unlike transport, is actually important' argument.
Having seen subscribers to that philosophy unsuccessfully attempt to design
transport protocols (and raise the MD5 issue repeatedly, because it's
considered a security issue, and they're at home with security), I would
Hi Russ,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com 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?
If that were
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Benoit Claise
Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrr trying to track all
the open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the
authors.
[WEG] While I realize that Benoit was originally speaking
On 05/03/2013 11:55, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a wireless network, where packets can be lost
inline
- Original Message -
From: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
To: daedu...@btconnect.com; martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
Cc: hartmans-i...@mit.edu; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:53 PM
Ah, the 'but security, unlike transport, is actually important'
argument.
Having seen
Hi Tom
On 03/05/2013 12:43 PM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:13 AM
Hi Tom,
On 03/05/2013 11:38 AM, t.p.
On 3/5/2013 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 05/03/2013 11:55, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a
On Mar 5, 2013, at 15:10, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
The question is can we do with a
Transport Area Director whose congestion control skills are limited; I
am suggesting we can, because of all the work over the years in
congestion control and the relative stability of the topic.
Allison:
The split between Transport and RAI was needed. Together it is too much work
for one Area.
The rest of your question ought to be discussed at the TSVAREA meeting in
Orlando.
Russ
On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
Hi, Russ,
Was there something causative about
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 23:44, Allison Mankin allison.man...@gmail.com wrote:
Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport?
a lot of thought went into making sure that the WGs that went on to form RAI
formed a cohesive whole. In hindsight, we should have thought more about
On 3/5/2013 8:42 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Finally, let's not forget that this year was a special case,
I'm going to strongly suggest that that is both wrong and
counter-productive to claim.
As Mary (and I) noted, TSV has been at a crisis level to fill for some
years now, but I believe it
On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
Hi Russ,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty
On 3/5/2013 8:18 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Martin already mentioned RMCAT. And I mentioned Wgs wanting to build
lightweight UDP-based protocols, which are hitting transport issues incl.
congestion control all the time.
Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol
Original Message -
From: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk; martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu;
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:18 PM
On Mar 5, 2013, at 15:10, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
The question is can we do with a
On 3/4/2013 2:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
ADs do not 'lead' the work of their area. They do not initiate
the work, produce the charters or write the specifications. Work that
fails or succeeds does so because it has community consensus and demand,
not because an AD was diligent
Joe,
On 3/5/2013 10:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 3/4/2013 2:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
ADs do not 'lead' the work of their area. They do not initiate
the work, produce the charters or write the specifications. Work that
fails or succeeds does so because it has community consensus
On 3/5/13 9:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
We should not expect to appoint IESG members that need a tutorial on
basic protocol principles.
I haven't seen anybody propose appointing someone who needs a
tutorial on basic protocol principles. The discussion so far
has seemed mostly to be whether or not
On 3/5/2013 10:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Joe,
On 3/5/2013 10:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 3/4/2013 2:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
ADs do not 'lead' the work of their area. They do not initiate
the work, produce the charters or write the specifications. Work that
fails or
On 3/5/2013 10:40 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
On 3/5/2013 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 05/03/2013 11:55, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their
motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet =
:42
To: bra...@isi.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area
Director)
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
On 3/5/2013 3:01 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In the 3GPP case of GSM/UMTS/LTE, the wireless network will never drop
the packet, by design. It will just delay the packet as it gets
resent through various checkpoints and goes through various rounds of
FEC. The result is delay, TCP penalties
On Mar 5, 2013, at 18:58, Bob Braden bra...@isi.edu wrote:
Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol at
the application layer is generally a Bad Idea. Why do the same bad ideas keep
being reinvented?
Because we don't have a good selection of transport protocols
Russ,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:18:20AM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
The split between Transport and RAI was needed. Together it is too much
work for one Area.
Not everybody believed at the time, and still believes that increasing the
size of a committee makes the committee function better.
While the IETF is unique in many ways, the staff-volunteer issue isn't all that
unique. Many organizations face this. As one example, organizations like IEEE
and ACM struggle with this. (For example, they have, over the years, delegated
many functions in conference management that used to be
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
