RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
If the goal is to allow prettier output while still maintaining the stability and reusability of plain text, that practically demands an input format that is plain text underneath No, the goal (as stated in the ID) is to enable normative drawings and equations that are not possible or extremely inelegant in plain text. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
Hi, Yaakov, OK, yeah, we got that part. The question is, will the use of this format prevent people from starting with the plain text in an ID? The ID you published is in both txt and pdf, so if someone wanted to start with the plain text in your ID, they could just start with the txt format. If I understood John's question, it was, can we count on having plain text that anyone can start with? (and if I misunderstood John's question, I'm sure he'll post the real one soon!) Thanks, Spencer From: Yaakov Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:34 AM Subject: RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt If the goal is to allow prettier output while still maintaining the stability and reusability of plain text, that practically demands an input format that is plain text underneath No, the goal (as stated in the ID) is to enable normative drawings and equations that are not possible or extremely inelegant in plain text. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
OK, yeah, we got that part. The question is, will the use of this format prevent people from starting with the plain text in an ID? The idea is to have normative equations and diagrams. Probably at first people will leave SOME text in the pure ASCII version, but as time goes on and we get used to using diagrams more and more, the text will probably vestigial. The ID you published is in both txt and pdf, so if someone wanted to start with the plain text in your ID, they could just start with the txt format. Absolutely, although it would be harder for them to understand the point without seeing the real diagrams and equations. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Speaking for myself -- As noted in the appeal, quite a few documents relate to the revocation of posting rights. They cover different types of lists, authorized enforcers, potential behaviors, remedies, and procedures. At this point, the major issue seems to be non-WG lists. I don't think that the full set of documents needs to be replaced to clarify most of the questions. That would be quite an undertaking and the IETF needs a clear, consistent set of guidelines in the meantime. So it is possible that a glue document would do the job; it is also possible that the situation could be addressed without any documents at all, just by a clear set of guidelines and a statement of policy The major issue is whether the policy is clearly stated, widely understood and agreed to by the community and fairly administered. From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bernard Aboba' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500 Bernard, The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new documents with the intent to just glue the current set back together. Is that a correct interpretation? -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba -- Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- -- My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive -- as banning, it is -- very important to have clear, well documented procedures -- dictating the -- process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation -- of more documents -- may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the -- applicability and overlap of the existing documents is -- already somewhat -- unclear. -- -- -- From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CC: IAB [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iesg (E-mail) iesg@ietf.org, -- ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500 -- -- Sam, -- -- One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not -- BCP upon BCP upon BCP. -- -- The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented -- on published operational procedures should not be at odds with -- our general or specific process documents, or else that seems -- to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have -- a community-defined process for that (which seems to result -- in a BCP). -- -- Again -- that's just one person's perspective. -- -- Leslie. -- -- Sam Hartman wrote: -- -- So, a clarification request: -- -- Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement -- does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John -- Klensin has -- made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are -- better handled by operational procedures made available -- for community -- comment than by BCP document. -- -- It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the -- processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all -- codified in BCP. -- -- -- I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would -- appreciate comments from its members. -- -- --Sam -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fairness and changing rules
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:31:08PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: Harald I do not want the IETF to craft rules for X, and then Harald re-craft them for Y, Z and W because hastily crafted Harald rules did not fit the next situation to come along. I want Harald the rules to be reasonable, and stable. And I think Harald making up rules while considering a specific unique case Harald is harmful to such a process. Perhaps. However precident-based case law seems to work well for a number of process systems. There is an old saying, Hard cases make bad law, which shows that there are certainly times when precedent-based case law does have its failure modes. The real problem I see here is the fact that we are _trying_ to make lots and lots of rules. Strict rules make (appear to make) life easier, because then the people applying the rules can be programs, and can just blindly follow the rules. Ambiguous rules that don't cover every last possible contingency with rules for each and every case (what we have now) makes life painful, since we have these long and extended and tiresome debates. So there is an assumption that the right place to go is have rules that cover all cases. Of course, there is a 3rd possibility which is to simply make the rules be that we trust the IESG to use its discretion wisely, and if they abuse that right, people can either (a) throw the bums out at the future nomcom cycles, or (b) choose to go to another standards body. (This is, after all, not like Soviet Russia where if you don't like the rights and due process that you receive, you can't go anywhere else.) The reality is, if we don't find a way of managing disruptive people, it will be the _productive_ people that we decide to go somewhere else. Presumbly it is pretty clear which possibility I think makes the most sense. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Total of 122 messages in the last 7 days ending midnight January 25. Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 10.66% | 13 | 8.86% |48108 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7.38% |9 | 9.40% |51030 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.56% |8 | 7.05% |38290 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.56% |8 | 5.64% |30646 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.28% |4 | 5.39% |29295 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.92% |6 | 3.36% |18251 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.10% |5 | 3.79% |20573 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.10% |5 | 3.46% |18797 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.46% |3 | 4.82% |26186 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.28% |4 | 2.40% |13042 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.46% |3 | 3.09% |16779 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.46% |3 | 2.55% |13857 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.46% |3 | 2.42% |13152 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.46% |3 | 1.85% |10055 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 2.48% |13478 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 2.66% |14423 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.74% | 9465 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.53% | 8328 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.37% | 7463 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.32% | 7188 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.32% | 7153 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.24% | 6735 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.21% | 6548 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 1.59% | 8633 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 1.40% | 7620 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 1.20% | 6519 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.96% | 5233 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.96% | 5198 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.83% | 4509 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.81% | 4415 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.79% | 4269 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.76% | 4150 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.76% | 4142 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.76% | 4139 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.75% | 4083 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.74% | 4019 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.73% | 3959 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.71% | 3830 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.65% | 3504 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.64% | 3484 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.64% | 3481 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.63% | 3418 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.60% | 3240 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.57% | 3102 | moore@cs.utk.edu 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 2938 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 2930 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 2908 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.52% | 2816 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.50% | 2694 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.48% | 2583 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.45% | 2432 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--++--+ 100.00% | 122 |100.00% | 543090 | Total ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Bernard Aboba wrote: it is also possible that the situation could be addressed without any documents at all, just by a clear set of guidelines and a statement of policy That would work for me! Regards, Ed Juskevicius -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Speaking for myself -- As noted in the appeal, quite a few documents relate to the revocation of posting rights. They cover different types of lists, authorized enforcers, potential behaviors, remedies, and procedures. At this point, the major issue seems to be non-WG lists. I don't think that the full set of documents needs to be replaced to clarify most of the questions. That would be quite an undertaking and the IETF needs a clear, consistent set of guidelines in the meantime. So it is possible that a glue document would do the job; it is also possible that the situation could be addressed without any documents at all, just by a clear set of guidelines and a statement of policy The major issue is whether the policy is clearly stated, widely understood and agreed to by the community and fairly administered. From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bernard Aboba' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500 Bernard, The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new documents with the intent to just glue the current set back together. Is that a correct interpretation? -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On -- Behalf Of Bernard Aboba -- Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- -- My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive as -- banning, it is very important to have clear, well documented -- procedures dictating the -- process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation -- of more documents -- may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the -- applicability and overlap of the existing documents is -- already somewhat -- unclear. -- -- -- From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CC: IAB [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iesg (E-mail) iesg@ietf.org, -- ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500 -- -- Sam, -- -- One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not BCP upon -- BCP upon BCP. -- -- The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented -- on published operational procedures should not be at odds with our -- general or specific process documents, or else that seems to -- suggest the process documents need updating. And we have a -- community-defined process for that (which seems to result in a -- BCP). -- -- Again -- that's just one person's perspective. -- -- Leslie. -- -- Sam Hartman wrote: -- -- So, a clarification request: -- -- Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public -- requirement does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, -- John -- Klensin has -- made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that -- are better handled by operational procedures made available -- for community -- comment than by BCP document. -- -- It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that -- the processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are -- all codified in BCP. -- -- -- I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would -- appreciate comments from its members. -- -- --Sam -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
Yaakov, While I support the general idea behind the experiment advocated in this draft, in fairness, your statement below is just your version of what John said. To see how complex a set of equations might be easily shown in text, see http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html. Rocket science, I believe they call it. :-) So your statement boils down to extremely inelegant which is just another way to say uglier. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein -- Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:34 AM -- To: John Levine; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt -- -- -- If the goal is to allow prettier output while still -- maintaining the -- stability and reusability of plain text, that practically demands an -- input format that is plain text underneath -- -- No, the goal (as stated in the ID) is to enable normative -- drawings and -- equations that are -- not possible or extremely inelegant in plain text. -- -- Y(J)S -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I-D ACTION: draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt
Eric, The equations you link to are so simple that linearizing them is no problem. However, there are equations somewhat harder to linearize that x = x0 + vt + 1/2 a t^2. As I have said before, a few years back I was attempting to write an ID on packet loss concealment for TDMoIP. After trying a few integral signs and matrices I gave up (and the work was never disclosed to the WG). We put a much simpler equation into the text of the ID, but even is unwieldly in linearized form. Yes, I guess it is always POSSIBLE to write every equation and diagram, e.g. by telling the user to spread out the next 25 pages as a 5 by 5 rectangle and then to stand on a ladder to view the result, but I don't see the point in so doing. At some point impractical becomes impossible for all intents and purposes, and ugly becomes meaningless. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
WG Action: Conclusion of Securely Available Credentials (sacred)
The Securely Available Credentials WG (sacred) in the Security Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam Hartman. The SACRED WG has completed all of their milestones. There are no active SACRED WG documents. The mailing list will remain active. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 65th IETF Meeting in Dallas, TX, USA
There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 65th IETF Meeting in Dallas, TX, USA: February 27th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00) Internet-Draft Submissions All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday, February 27th at 9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial submissions with a filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. The Secretariat would appreciate receiving WG Chair approval by Monday, February 20th at 9:00 AM ET. March 6th: Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version -01 and higher) Internet-Draft Submissions All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted by Monday, March 6th at 9:00 AM ET. Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts directory or announced until on or after Monday, March 20th at 9:00 AM ET, when Internet-Draft posting resumes. Please do not wait until the last minute to submit. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The IETF Secretariat FYI: The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for the 65th IETF Meeting can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_65.html. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
