Gen-ART Review of draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

viewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 11-October-2013 IETF LC End Date: 11-November-2013 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Major issues: Section 4 says: "... members of any given working group ..." Working groups do not have me

Re: Montevideo statement

uss, > At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote: >> This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not >> change what happened at the meeting. Making the statement very public >> allows a good discussion of what should happen next. I look forwar

Re: Montevideo statement

SM: > This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without > requesting comments from the IETF Community. In my humble opinion it would > be good if there was a comment period. This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not change what happened at t

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-08

ure-08 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2013-09-23 IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-01 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: Major Concerns: The use of "required" in Section 3.2.4 is confusing to me. It says: In a basic session involving only audio there are typically two audio /RTP str

Re: Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

Jim: > 1) DNSSEC needs to have the time within one hour. But these devices do not > have TOY clocks (and arguably, never will, nor even probably should ever have > them). > > So how do you get the time after you power on the device? The usual answer > is "use ntp". Except you can't do a D

Re: pgp signing in van

Dave: >> is pgp compromised? > > PGP is a packaging method. Absent grossly incompetent packaging -- and I've > never heard claims that PGP or S/MIME were guilty of that -- my sense is that > the interesting security mechanisms are the underlying algorithms. > > Is there something about PGP th

Re: [IAB] Call for Volunteers to Serve on the ICANN Nominating Committee

Patrik: Thanks for the correction. The error is mine. Russ On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 31 aug 2013, at 18:33, IAB Chair wrote: > >> An active member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a >> vice-chair of the Security & Stability Advisory Committ

Re: [IAOC] Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher

In my experience, the RFC Editor relies on authors to compile non-MIB ASN.1 modules. Russ On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:16 -0700, Sandy Ginoza wrote: > >> 2) In the following, we suggest that "ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and >> MIB-related d

Re: [IAB] Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"

SM: > This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: > Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream > RFC. > > The document is available for inspection here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/ > > From S

Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have also enjoyed my time in Berlin. However, we need to complete the analysis on the impact of VAT. I hope there is a way to avoid a cost to each participant of an 19%. We heard in plenary that VAT clearly applies to conferences, but it may no

Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05

uri-05 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 26-July-2013 IETF LC End Date: 16-Auguest-2013 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC, but a few questions should be answered. This document is the specification of the syntax and semantics

Call for Community Input on the ICANN Nominating Committee Volunteers

Townsley Samuel Weiler Hassan Zaheer The community is invited to send comments about this selection to the IAB chair and the IAB Executive Director . We expect to make a decision within the next few weeks. Thanks in advance, Russ Housley IAB Chair On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:36 PM, IAB Chair

Re: IETF 87 Technical Plenary Experiment

an experiment to enable remote participation in the Technical >> Plenary using the OPUS codec. Information on how to access on the Remote >> Participation experiment is also available on the IAB wiki page: >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/wiki/IETF-87#IETF87TechnicalPlenary:OPUSCodec >> >> On behalf of the IAB, >> Russ Housley >> IAB Chair

Re: Second Call for Volunteers to Serve on the ICANN Nominating Committee

es (typically at UTC > > 14:00), with the expectation that these teleconferences will held weekly > > during the candidate assessment process in May-June. > > > > NOTE: ICANN does cover travel and hotel costs for a pre-determined number > > of days at each of the 3 consecutive ICANN meetings. > > > > For more information about the ICANN NomCom see: http://nomcom.icann.org/. > > If you are willing to be considered or would like to nominate someone for > > the position, please send an email to iab-chair at iab.org and execd at > > iab.org. > > > > On behalf of the IAB, > > Russ Housley > > IAB Chair

Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here. On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:37 PM, wrote: > Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many > succeed? > > If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wou

Re: [IAB] RSOC Appointments

Arturo: The original call for nominations did this in two ways. First, it pointed to RFC 6635, which defines the role of the RSOC. Second, it included a list of the top four items that the RSOC is focusing on right now. > The current focus of the RSOC is on: > > 1) Overseeing and assisting t

Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis-02

viewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2013-06-15 IETF LC End Date: 2013-06-27 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I raise one major concern, and once it is resolved, the document will be ready. Major Concern: In Section 12.2

Re: Renaming RFC

I think this suggestion should be discussed on rfc-interest, not this mail list. Russ On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:55 PM, wrote: > > RFC should be renamed to Resulted From Comments. It's now the endpoint of the > process; Request For Comments dated from when it was the start. > > (Though RFCs thr

Re: Last Call: (Enrollment over Secure Transport) to Proposed Standard

I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards track. Russ On Jun 10, 2013, at 10:45 AM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure > (X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document: > - 'Enrollment over Secure Transport' >

Re: APPSDIR review of draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01

Tobias: Thanks for the review. Really, the delegation id to the RIRs. which in turn use the ICANN ASO to establish global policy. Thanks again, Russ On May 16, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > Hi, > > I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this >

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-07

David: Thanks for your efforts on this document. Your first review was in May 2011, and the document has improved greatly for you continued pushing on the concerns. Russ On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Black, David wrote: > The -07 version of this draft resolves all of the issues raised by the G

draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01

Many of the comments that were posted to this list have been incorporated. Please comment on the updated document. Russ = = = = = = = = = A new version of I-D, draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Geoff Huston and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:dr

Re: (Former) IETF Chair Interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH65RbOSrZ8 On Apr 5, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > This was recorded in January 2013, when I was the IETF Chair. It was not > released until March 20th, when I was no longer IETF Chair > > It is 15 minutes. It is not aimed at a tec

(Former) IETF Chair Interview

This was recorded in January 2013, when I was the IETF Chair. It was not released until March 20th, when I was no longer IETF Chair It is 15 minutes. It is not aimed at a technical crowd. Russ

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

Dave: >> Alexey: >> >> Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used >> to access an archive, so only the administrator should be able to >> delete the spam. >> >> Russ >> >> >> On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >>> On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sp

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

Alexey: Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used to access an archive, so only the administrator should be able to delete the spam. Russ On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sparks wrote: > >> While looking at it, I

Re: Last Call:

I wonder if the direction of Section 1.2 can be revised to make it more of an engineering document. It currently says: In recent years, the urgency for moving from traditional transport technologies, such as SONET/SDH, TDM, and ATM, to new packet technologies has been rising. This is la

Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:04 PM, SM wrote: > At 12:43 20-03-2013, Elwyn Davies wrote: >> This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end: > > I looked up the meaning of weasel words and found the following: > > "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specifi

Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

Elwyn: > Two points: > >> Rereading things again, I have another suggestion; >> >> 4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the >> Introduction. The Intro starts out talking about the document, its >> goals, and what is in scope and out of scope of the document. Then >> tra

Thank you to Monique Morrow for her service as ITU-T NGN liaison manager

Next time you see Monique, please thank her for he service the the Internet community. From: IAB Chair [iab-ch...@iab.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:04 PM To: Monique Morrow Subject: Thank you for your service as NGN liaison manager Dear Monique, T

Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

David: > 1) In Section 1, goal #2, "Hierarchical Allocation", I believe a reference > the definition in RFC 5226 - Section 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy > Definitions, should be considered. We could do so, but I do not believe that the few word in RFC 5226 on hierarchical allocation improve the

IETF 86 Admin Plenary Minutes

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-iesg-opsplenary Please review and comment. Russ

Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt

A new, I-D, draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt, has been posted. I am writing to ask for your review. Russ = = = = = = = = = = Filename:draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt Title: The Internet Numbers Registry System Creation date: 2013-03-14 Group: Individual Submission

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

causative about extracting RAI from Transport? > > Allison > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >> Margaret: >> >>> The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice >>> between "limited knowledge of congesti

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

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 >>

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

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.

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

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

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

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

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

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.

Re: Internet Hall of Fame Celebrates Internet Leaders: Second Annual Induction Ceremony Set for June 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey

The Internet Hall of Fame nominations are now open. Please provide your nominations here: http://internethalloffame.org/nominations. Thanks. Russ > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-hall-fame-celebrates-internet-leaders-second-annual-induction-ceremony-set-june-2013 > > You may

Internet Hall of Fame Celebrates Internet Leaders: Second Annual Induction Ceremony Set for June 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey

http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-hall-fame-celebrates-internet-leaders-second-annual-induction-ceremony-set-june-2013 You may know someone that deserves to be nominated ... Russ = = = = = = = = Internet Hall of Fame Celebrates Internet Leaders: Second Annual Induction Ceremony Set

Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft

>> Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts >> >> "1.1. What is a Working Group Draft? >> >> Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as >> Internet Drafts (I-D). > > Melinda and/or Randy have said what I want to say, but as a factual > clar

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

Stephan: >> Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear >> to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the >> responsibilities to participants. > > That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I > don't think that empirical data

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

Stephan: Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to participants. Russ On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > Hi, > Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it neces

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

Brian: Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this proposed text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the BCP to get all of the details. Russ On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't much like the change in approach. I th

Re: Antitrust FAQ

Alessandro: No. We held a BOF to answer exactly that question. The conclusion was that no new policies were needed, but that educational material was desirable. Russ On Nov 3, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 01/Nov/2012 18:31:47 -0400 Russ Housley wrote: >>

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

John: >> I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the >> recall option? If not, please be very clear about it to the >> list as I haven't actually seen a request from the IAOC for >> that process to proceed as far as I can tell. > > Because I am personally very reluctant to see this

Re: I* Member Removal Process

Mike: > Yup. But I'd say their wishes would have a great deal of influence on > whether or not this would go forward. And I'd still like to get at least > some indication that this is their desired outcome at this point. I think, > if nothing else, this needs to be part of whatever record co

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

Mike: As Joel already said, the recall process is not dependent on the wishes of the IAOC. Further, please note that IAB, IESG, and IAOC members cannot be recall petition signers. RFC 3777 says: 1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are qualified to be voting m

Re: Antitrust FAQ

A formal policy requires IETF consensus, and it would be published as a BCP in the RFC series. Russ On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, David Rudin (LCA) wrote: > At a high level, I'm curious what the difference is between an FAQ and a > formal policy? I ask since Section 6 of the FAQ seems to be pr

Re: REMINDER: Call for Comment on 'Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards'

Stephane: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:09:22AM -0700, > IAB Chair wrote > a message of 155 lines which said: > >> This is an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 'Affirmation of the Modern >> Paradigm for Standards'. > > What's the point of this Call for Comment? Was there any chance that > the text

Re: In Memoriam IETF web page

>> i started the thread on nanog. i am not sure abha or jon would want to >> be on such a list. remember them and honor and carry on their work, >> don't memorialize them. > > With all respect, it is not just about the person, it is about their work, > its importance, the history of this Intern

Re: In Memoriam IETF web page

I am very supportive of this idea. Russ On Oct 21, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > A thread on the nanog list, about abha ahuja, reminds me of a suggestion I > made casually to a few folk after the last IETF meeting: > > We should consider having a persistent IETF pag

Re: Last Call: (Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership) to Best Current Practice

Dave: >> I agree that this sentence needs changed. However, I think that one other >> sentence should be updated while we are dealing with the IAOC in this >> document. >> >> RFC 3777 says: >> >>Member Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting >> member of the I

Re: Last Call: (Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership) to Best Current Practice

I agree that this sentence needs changed. However, I think that one other sentence should be updated while we are dealing with the IAOC in this document. RFC 3777 says: Member Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting member of the IESG or IAB may be questioned, pe

Re: Last Call: (Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle) to Informational RFC

SM: >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >> the following document: >> - 'Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle' >> as Informational RFC >> >> The author is documenting his own opinion, and he is presenting that >> opinion to the community

Re: Last Call: (Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle) to Informational RFC

I felt that the IETF Last Call would bring it to the attention of the community. This seems worthwhile because the opinions are about an IETF process. Russ On Sep 25, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > I don't understand the process for this document. > > I read Russ's words, b

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

Todd: The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards track RFCs. Russ On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:36 PM, tglassey wrote: > On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >> Dave: > Russ - can the Independent Submission Stream (ISS) be used to create a fully >

Re: Neutering the impending patent wars... this is something the IETF can actually have a role in...

Todd: The intended recipients are two public mail lists. Given that situation the legend at the bottom of you message seems inappropriate to me. Russ On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:30 PM, tglassey wrote: > [snip] > Todd Glassey > > -- > //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not th

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

Dave: >>> This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its >>> own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel >>> express comfort with this language? > > >> Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this >> is the resulting text. This t

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

Dave: >> The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments >> that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to >> be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a >> court order to do so. That said, the IESG firmly belie

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

I believe that the IETF has all of the necessary rights to reproduce, distribute, and display publicly all Internet-Drafts. Here is my analysis: In RFC 1310, March 1992, the IAB describes Internet-Drafts, but it does not define the rights that contributors grant. As best I can determine, the ve

Re: copyright notices in RFC 6716

ate from > ID or RFC revision-to-revision. > > Todd// >> What puzzles me is that the explanation that I have received earlier is >> that variations beyond what the TLP demand is not permitted even if >> there is community support for the content of a particu

Re: copyright notices in RFC 6716

mitted even if > there is community support for the content of a particular document. > I'm happy if this is now the policy, as it would allow including more > source code into RFCs. > > /Simon > > Russ Housley writes: > >> Simon: >> >> The authors

Re: copyright notices in RFC 6716

Simon: The authors wanted to grant additional rights beyond those that are granted by the TLP. They indicated those rights in Section 10 of the internet-Draft. This was challenged during WG Last Call, and it was challenged during IETF Last Call. In each case, the authors make their desire cl

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

Alessandro: If an I-D is posted with secret text, then the secret is disclosed. I-D are copied to many shadow repositories all over the world. So, removing the I-D from ietf.org will not remove the secret text from the Internet. Please explain what you mean by inappropriate boilerplate? The

Re: Number of interim meetings?

The announcements for interim meetings are posted here: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim.html. Without doing any statistical analysis, the list does not show a shift in the way the IETF is working. Some WGs like to make use of face-to-face or virtual interim meetings. Most do this when they

Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt

>> The document says: >> >> o Bullet 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by this: >> >> The nominating committee comprises at least a >> Chair, 10 voting volunteers, 4 liaisons, and an >> advisor. >> >> The Past Chair is missing. >> >> Th

Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt

The document says: o Bullet 15 is replaced by these two bullets: 15.1. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members

Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt

The document says: o Bullet 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by this: The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting volunteers, 4 liaisons, and an advisor. The Past Chair is missing. The adviser is not required, a

Re: Progress with Open Internet endowment

Thank you! We made it. We received $26,255 from 90 donors. Thanks agin, Russ On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > As of Friday morning, we are very close to the goal. As of 9:00 AM this > morning, we have $24,905 from 80 donors. Please help if you can. > > Tha

Re: Progress with Open Internet endowment

As of Friday morning, we are very close to the goal. As of 9:00 AM this morning, we have $24,905 from 80 donors. Please help if you can. Thanks, Russ On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > Our current totals as of noon today, the Open Internet Endowment has received > $

Progress with Open Internet endowment

Our current totals as of noon today, the Open Internet Endowment has received $19,245 from 54 donors. Thanks to all. It would be great to reach $25,000 (or more) from 75 donors (or more) by lunch tomorrow. Please help if you can. There will be a table at the Bits-N-Bites tonight. People will

Re: Draft IESG Statement Regarding Ethertype Requests

Dan: Only protocol specifications make use of Ethertypes. The statement is intended to apply to any protocol specification on the IETF Stream (Standards Track RFC, Informational RFC, or Experimental RFC) that needs to allocate a new Ethertype. Russ On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08

Joe: >> I think you missed my point. In a PKI, when the issuer significantly >> changes the policy, subsequent certificates have a different policy >> identifier. I do not see a similar concept here. > > You're right, I did miss your point, quite thoroughly :-) > > I am guessing that the ans

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08

Joe: I think you missed my point. In a PKI, when the issuer significantly changes the policy, subsequent certificates have a different policy identifier. I do not see a similar concept here. Russ On Jul 16, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > Hi Russ, > > On 2012-07-15, at 11

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08

Peter: Thanks for the review. I've not read this document yet, but you review raises a question in my mind. If a DNSSEC policy or practice statement is revised or amended, what actions are needed make other aware of the change? Russ On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Peter Yee wrote: > I am the

Fwd: NomCom 2012-13 Call for Volunteers

committee is responsible for filling, are as follows: IAOC: Dave Crocker IAB: Alissa Cooper Joel Halpern David Kessens Danny McPherson Jon Peterson Dave Thaler IESG: Russ Housley (General Area) Pete Resnick (Applications Area) Ralph Droms (Internet Area) Ronald Bonica

Re: Comments for

Julian: > No, I was just trying to understand *why* the archive can't be at > . I was told that we cannot have http://www.ietf.org/tao directed to the document and also be the directory containing the archive directory. Russ

Re: Comments for

Julian: Do you object to http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive for the old version of the Tao? Russ On Jul 4, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-21 23:08, Russ Housley wrote: >> This URL <http://www.ietf.org/tao> will bring up the current document. It >> w

Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?

t; see how it evolves. > > Cheers, > Mehmet > > >> -Original Message- >> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of ext Russ >> Housley >> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:41 PM >> To: Thomas Nadeau >

Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at an IETF meeting?

There was a long discussion about this event prior to it being scheduled. Sorry you missed that discussion. We will have a discussion after the event to determine if we should do it again. Russ On Jun 28, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote: > > Has the IETF morphed into a conferenc

Re: Comments for

This URL will bring up the current document. It works exactly the same as . This means that cannot be used as suggested on this thread. I propose the following URLs for the Tao: - current Tao:

Re: Publishing the Tao as a web page

Paul: It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content. I think that is not the case. Rather, the initial content will come from draft-hoffman-tao4677bis. Do you want draft-hoffman-tao4677bis to be published as the final RFC version in the Tao series? Russ On Jun 1

Re: Last Call: (Requirements for IETF Nominations Committee tools) to Informational RFC

I want to highlight one think in this document. The document says: There is an existing tool for supporting Nomcom work. The set of requirements specified in this document are mainly enhancement requirements or behavior changes to the existing tool. Unless otherwise stated all of th

Re: Change in I-D announcement format

Brian: There was no announcement that this change was about to be deployed; however, there was a long discussion of the change. It started with a request for the HTML version of the I-D instead of the plain text version. At the end of the discussion the decision was to use the Datatracker URL

Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt

Paul and Brian: >>> Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that >>> the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG >>> (in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF >>> consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject >>> to appeal lik

Re: Friday scheduling in YVR?

Andrew: That is the current plan, but we have not seen all of the WG requests yet, so it is subject to change. Russ On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > At the last meeting in Paris, the Friday sessions ended by 13:30. > > I haven't seen (but might have

Re: Making the Tao a web page

I have a concern here. When I did the AD review for this document, I was quite surprised how stale it had become. For example, the document told people to send I-Ds to the Secretariat for posting instead of pointing to the online I-D submission tool. If we put it in a wiki, there will be more

Re: Last Call: (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC

Sam: I'm seeking clarity. Are you suggesting that the pre-WG mail list ask this question while drafting the charter, or are you suggesting that the IESG include this question in the call for external review of the charter, or both? Russ On May 26, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > I'd

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

> For what it is worth, here is my opinion on this subject (which I was > asked to post here). > > I see possible privacy law problems with posting the blue sheets, so > I would not. > > I see a good reason to scan and have images of new blue sheets, make > it easier to respond to subpoenas. >

Re: Leverage Patent Search API to reduce BCP79 related issues [was: Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt]

BCP 79 says: "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds, would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Doug: >> - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. > > Everything else seems fine, but I'm concerned about this one. Have you > run this idea past some sort of legal counsel who is knowledgeable about > intellectual property litigation? If so, no worries. The IETF Counsel has been consulted,

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Hi Tobias. I would like to make them available as part of the proceedings so that anyone can find them and view them. This _may_ reduce subpoenas for the blue sheets in the future. Many people have expressed similar thoughts about the RFID experiment. Last time we investigated a system for

RFC 6410 errata

w and at: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6410&eid=3095 >>> >>> -- >>> Type: Editorial >>> Reported by: Russ Housley >>> >>> Section: 2.2 >>> >>> Original Text >>

IETF 83 Operations and Administration Plenary Minutes

The draft minutes for the IETF Operations and Administration Plenary have been posted. Many thanks to Mirjam Kuehne for taking notes. They can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-iesg-ietf-operations-and-administration-plenary.txt There are a few places whe

IETF attendees reengineer their hotel's Wi-Fi network

Disgusted IETF attendees reengineer their Paris hotel's Wi-Fi network What happens when a bunch of IETF super nerds show up in Paris for a major conference and discover their hotel's Wi-Fi network has imploded? http://newsletters.networkworld.com/t/6464858/258923304/355639/0/

Re: Trade show at IETF

Andy: > On 03/16/2012 01:35 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> IAOC>QUESTION: What do you think about doing a Beer and Gear >> IAOC> style of event on an evening that does not conflict with other >> IAOC> IETF activities? >> >> I think that hallway conversations, private meetings and

Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...

for who has problem in attachment downloading the solution should be at the delivery Message Store level, where the strip of the attachment could be done accordingly to an user configurable mailbox parameter (as we do on our server, where we call it Easy Delivery). There

Re: IETF Mail Archive Tools RFI

Yes. This is used for mail lists associated with bids for the IETF. We wanted to make sure that no IETF vendor was able to see these messages, such as the one that operates the servers for ietf.org. Russ On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:50 AM, SM wrote: > Is ietf-bids.org an IETF domain name?

  1   2   3   4   5   >