You raise two questions about making the candidate list public.
You raise the question of whether we can afford the loss of candidates from
those people not willing to be seen as losing. I will admit to not being
sure I understand the driver for people who both have that concern and
could do th
ucts les useful, and reduce actual
interoperability in the field.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 05:36 AM 3/11/2005, shogunx wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Tony Hain wrote:
>
> >>Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal
> >>crap
does
not belong in this document at all.
With regard to Harald's original question, I believe this document is
"good enough". We can refine it from now till doomsday.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 06:06 PM 2/2/2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
If the question is only that
Maybe I am naive, but the discussion I have seen on the list is not
actually about something the IETF can or should "approve". Reportedly,
ForeTec, CNRI, and Neustar are in negotiations. The IETF has no say in
such negotiations.
Reportedly, what has been asked is "will the IETF react badly to
I like this resolution. I think the "review against a zero base
assumption" captures the essential goal, and the minimum staff was a weak
restatement.
Yours,
Joel
At 07:44 AM 1/12/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, januar 12, 2005 07:29:27 -0500 Scott W Brim
wrote:
On 1/12/20
t 10:25 AM 12/22/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joel,
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I think that there is a different side of this.
Suppose that a budget was worked out (as below), with a plan for a
certain expected coverage from ISOC general funds, meeting fees, and
directed donations.
Lets presume
This is a good question.
We probably ought to say something.
This may be too strong (but I am not sure.)
At a minimum, I would expect an IAOC member with such a conflict of
interest to recuse themselves from any discussion of the situation.
But, as written, this has odd implications. For exampl
I think that there is a different side of this.
Suppose that a budget was worked out (as below), with a plan for a certain
expected coverage from ISOC general funds, meeting fees, and directed
donations.
Lets presume the budget includes the plan for building the reserves.
If meeting fees run high
,
Joel M. Halpern
At 05:23 PM 12/19/2004, Scott Bradner wrote:
jck sed:
> Personally, I think I'd be happier with a
> professionally-conducted search, but YMMD (and probably does).
I agree (fwiw)
I suggested directly to the IASA TT but did not get a positive respose so
I'll suggest
Internet. Even the "definition" of the IETF
in the document is primarily for context rather than as an effort to
actually "define" the IETF.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:26 AM 12/8/2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
If we want to get WSIS support and subsequent R&D publ
On what kinds of grounds should such things be appealable?
For WG decisions, there can be appeals based on technical grounds or
procedural grounds.
The ISOC however may only here pure procedural appeals.
I would hate to see someone "appeal" an IAD decision because they happened
to disagree with
x27;s job to award that contract.
One would hope that the IESG had review over the person who they had to
work with that closely. But such review is VERY different from getting to
choose the person.
Just my reading of the documents,
Joel M. Halpern
At 04:40 PM 11/26/2004, Sam Hartman
managing the
contract with the infastructure provider.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 10:27 AM 11/26/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
In draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt it states at the end of sect 3.1:
Unless explicitly delegated with the consent of the IAOC, the IAD
will also fill the role of the IETF
OC, as it would make explicit if the IASA / IAD are
not doing a good job planning.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Not on of the document maintainers
but someone trying to understand what it will turn out to mean.
At 07:55 PM 11/17/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
A question for those maintaining the documentÂ…
Th
advancing such views.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 10:59 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
> all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the IESG
>
Actually, as far as I can tell the accountability is about the same in both
cases, and in neither case as "direct" as one would philosophically like
(but probably as direct as one can get in practice.) Similarly, the
"change control" appears to be equally in the IETF hands.
Yours,
Joel
At 10:3
age-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from
> here
>
>
> I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to
> follow.
sumes facts not in evidence.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I do not think "appeals" belongs in our mission and vision statement. They
are a mechanism to achieve openness and accountability, not the purpose of
the organzation.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 01:47 PM 2/5/2004 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
How about this:
To provide a fair and op
long as you do not request IETF agreement that it
is a good idea we can not stop you. In that regard, the market can still
choose.
It is true that the market attaches value to the IETF standardization. To
that degree, the market has made us judges and asked us to judge.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
esponse to a real
problem seem to be the wrong response.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:19 AM 11/21/2002 -0800, Charlie Perkins wrote:
Hello folks,
I realzed that my proposal probably wasn't clearly enough stated,
so here goes again.
It is my belief that the IESG has formulated som
e the folks who are not participating in a particular activity
at the IETF, but then conclude (after we standardize) that they have a
relevant patent. Should we declare the standard historic?
And then there are the folks who do not even participate in the IETF...
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:54
In general, multiple protocols for the exact same thing are a bad
idea. Translating that into practice is complicated.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:34 AM 4/16/2002 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>--On 15. april 2002 19:55 -0700 todd glassey
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
choke.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 06:46 PM 11/12/01 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > | at present our locators are AS numbers.
> >
> > No, Keith, they are not.
> >
> > The AS number does not describe a location in any sort of topology.
> > It is simply a representati
201 - 224 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
