Re: Nomcom06: IAB Member Candidate Feedback

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On Dec 17, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Nomcom06 wrote:


The NomCom requests that you provide your
input as soon as possible, for full consideration, please have them  
in no later than the end of the day, Tuesday, January 2, 2007.


Folks, you might want to consider that it's the week before  
Christmas.  Expecting people to drop what they're doing during the  
week most of us are scrambling to wrap up work projects before the  
break, finish Christmas shopping, make travel plans, and execute  
those travel plans, to meet your January 2 deadline is ... optimistic?


-lyndon

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: ion-ion-store open for public comment

[Dave Crocker]

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like


On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex; 
we just have more documentation about it.


1. We used to have far more flexibility about wg process than we now do. Small 
tasks required small effort.  The substantial procedures for creating and 
running a working group and producing documents that are today typical used to 
be reserved for larger and more difficult efforts. This includes now tending to 
require BOFs and tending to require Requirements documents, and so on.


2. The requirements for the form of wg documents have also changed, notably with 
respect to required boilerplate.  In addition, the boilerplate changes with some 
regularity and the enforcement of the requirements is substantially more stringent.


I'm sure the list is longer, but the above seem sufficient for making the point.


I don't think it's just about the overhead of getting an RFC 
_published_; it's about the overhead of achieving IETF consensus on 
one.  Process BCP's should be about IETF-level policy, not the 
operational practices of the I* or of any other entity that implements 
those policies.


Yes, the rules are different, just as the rules for Informational RFCs are 
different from standards track RFCs.  That's why the idea of a new RFC 
sub-category make sense.



The same sort of correction would have taken the IETF six months to a 
year plus a lot of arguing and reopening old issues. 


And then there is the possibility that you are describing a deeper IETF problem 
that needs its own focus...


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: ion-ion-store open for public comment

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Sunday, December 17, 2006 06:05:45 PM -0800 Dave Crocker 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like


On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex; we 
just have more documentation about it.  Whether that makes it easier or 
harder to know enough about IETF procedures would seem to depend on the 
accuracy and currency of that documentation.





On reflecting about the forces that seem to have led to the creation of
the ION "experiment", I suspect that there are two concerns:  1) Needing
a label that collects together internal operating notes and distinguishes
them from other IETF documents, and 2) the overhead of getting an RFC
published.

The first could be solved easily by adding a new, non-standard-track
sub-label to the RFC series and I suspect the latter could be resolved by
making an arrangement with the RFC Editor to have IONs go through less
handling and proofing overhead. (And, gosh, this might even give a basis
for reviewing why RFC publication has become high overhead...)


I don't think it's just about the overhead of getting an RFC _published_; 
it's about the overhead of achieving IETF consensus on one.  Process BCP's 
should be about IETF-level policy, not the operational practices of the I* 
or of any other entity that implements those policies.


Recently, the Federal Communications Commission in the US adopted a number 
of changes to regulations governing the Amateur Radio service.  The changes 
were "officially" published on November 15, and went into effect 30 days 
later.  In between, someone noticed an error which inadvertently made 
certain operations illegal that should not have been, and asked the FCC to 
fix it.  The fix was approved on December 15, the same day the new 
regulations became effective, and will probably become effective sometime 
in February.


The same sort of correction would have taken the IETF six months to a year 
plus a lot of arguing and reopening old issues.  A similar correction to an 
ION would have taken days, at most.  And that's sort of the point - overall 
policy should be set by IETF consensus, but operational details should not.


-- Jeff

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 68 hotel full

[John Levine]

>I'm having trouble finding "Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic"
>with online maps.

I believe hotel is toward the west end of the street, near the bridge
to the island in the river:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&e=UTF8&om=1&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=50.092682,14.443717&spn=0.009375,0.016673

On the other hand, the Hilton web site just offered me a room for IETF
week at E152 which appears to be the IETF rate, so it's not all that
sold out.

Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 68 hotel full

[Andy Bierman]

Andrew G. Malis wrote:
You're much better off following this link (but I think you have to use 
Internet Explorer for it to work):
 
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=50.09292~14.437961&style=r&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&rtp=null~null 



You can very easily see the Hilton.
 


thanks.
Somebody sent me a private email and said Friday (3/23) was sold out at the 
hotel.
When I used the online form (and called the 800#), I was trying to checkout on 
3/25.
When I entered 3/23 as the checkout date in the online form, I was able to
get a room at the IETF rate.



Cheers,
Andy



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: nomcom:Soliciting feedback from entire working groups?

[Markus.Isomaki]

Hi,

Dave Crocker wrote:
>> 
>> At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public?
>
>
>1. They are careful to say that the lists that are stuffed 
>with some fake entries.  Although I respect the intention, 
>this long-standing technique -- attempting to protect the 
>privacy of actual candidates, is ineffective and wasteful.  It 
>is particularly wasteful by having lots of folks asked to 
>provide feedback about people who are not real candidates.
>

I agree. When I was in NomCom two years ago, I was embarrased to see
negative, often very personal, feedback given on folks who had just been
put on the short list as fake entries. Some of these people had even
explicitly turned down their nomination. Of course the NomCom
confidentiality rules apply to that feedback and we never discussed it
even in the NomCom, but it still felt weird.

>2. Using some method of restricting the query to "active" wg 
>participants is a good idea.  Using the existance of a Tools 
>account is one simple method.  It's always worth considering 
>whether there are better criteria that are easy to implement, 
>but the current approach is pretty reasonable.
>

Agree here too. I think it would actually be good to have some kind of
pre-defined criteria on who is asked for feedback. Otherwise *that*
group may lead to bias, for instance there is a lot of input from people
active in certain WGs and very little from others. There's also a chance
that active NomCom members can insert in this group a lot of people they
know to give a certain type of feedback.

I would be in favor of making the short lists public. This semi-secrecy
is creating a way too much speculation and suspicion.

Markus

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 68 hotel full

[Andrew G. Malis]

You're much better off following this link (but I think you have to use
Internet Explorer for it to work):

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=50.09292~14.437961&style=r&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&rtp=null~null

You can very easily see the Hilton.

Cheers,
Andy


On 12/18/06, Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Janet P Gunn wrote:
>
> IIRC the hotel web site has a map.  You could use that to find the names
of
> nearby streets.
>

Really? Where?
The one I found didn't have street names.

http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/PRGHITW/directions.do#localmap

> Janet

Andy

>
>
> Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/18/2006 01:37:43 PM:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68:
>>
>> http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html
>>
>> There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps
>> at any rate.  The online form says no rooms are available
>> that week.
>>
>> I'm having trouble finding "Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic"
>> with online maps.
>>
>> Does anybody know which hotels are close to the Hilton Prague?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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: IETF 68 hotel full

[Andy Bierman]

Janet P Gunn wrote:


IIRC the hotel web site has a map.  You could use that to find the names of
nearby streets.



Really? Where?
The one I found didn't have street names.

http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/PRGHITW/directions.do#localmap


Janet


Andy




Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/18/2006 01:37:43 PM:


Hi,

There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68:

http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html

There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps
at any rate.  The online form says no rooms are available
that week.

I'm having trouble finding "Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic"
with online maps.

Does anybody know which hotels are close to the Hilton Prague?

thanks,
Andy



___
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: IETF 68 hotel full

[Janet P Gunn]

IIRC the hotel web site has a map.  You could use that to find the names of
nearby streets.

Janet


Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/18/2006 01:37:43 PM:

> Hi,
>
> There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68:
>
> http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html
>
> There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps
> at any rate.  The online form says no rooms are available
> that week.
>
> I'm having trouble finding "Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic"
> with online maps.
>
> Does anybody know which hotels are close to the Hilton Prague?
>
> thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Nomcom O6 categories -- GEN == Chair?

[Henrik Levkowetz]

Hi Dave,

on 2006-12-18 19:18 Dave Crocker said the following:
> I assume that the nominee sub-section labeled "GEN" is really for the IETF 
> Chair?

Yes.  I'll fix that in a moment.


Henrik


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Nomcom 06 feedback kudos

[Dave Crocker]

Folks,

In my/our usual fashion, we've slipped into engineering refinement discussions 
about the Nomcom's new mechanism for soliciting feedback, without commenting 
separately about the basic existence of that effort.



  So here is an unqualified "thank you" to the Nomcom
  folks for seeking to obtain a broader range of input.

This represents a fundamental expansion to the scope of those asked to provide 
comments to Nomcom.


I have no idea how the already-overworked Nomcom team can process this 
additional input, but am delighted at their effort.


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

IETF 68 hotel full

[Andy Bierman]

Hi,

There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68:

http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html

There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps
at any rate.  The online form says no rooms are available
that week.

I'm having trouble finding "Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic"
with online maps.

Does anybody know which hotels are close to the Hilton Prague?

thanks,
Andy



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom O6 categories -- GEN == Chair?

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, December 18, 2006 10:18 AM -0800 Dave Crocker 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I assume that the nominee sub-section labeled "GEN" is really
for the IETF Chair?


I think you should assume, given the number of these things that 
all of us seem to be receiving, that the Nomcom is distributing 
these notes indiscriminately to people who have developed 
documents, reviewed documents, or who participate in various 
mailing lists.


I share the concern of some others that we have promised people 
a confidential process and that this makes short lists (with or 
without ringers) generally available to anyone interested. 
Regardless of whether confidentiality is a good idea, it is what 
the procedures call for and what nominees have been promised.


If that is actually what is going on, then, IMO, the bad 
judgment associated with this decision completely overwhelms the 
bad judgment associated with redrawing the pool after 
consulting, among others, potential nominees and candidates.


john


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Nomcom O6 categories -- GEN == Chair?

[Dave Crocker]

I assume that the nominee sub-section labeled "GEN" is really for the IETF 
Chair?

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

CAPWAP Interim Meeting, January 24th & 25th

[Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)]

The CAPWAP WG will hold a two-day interim meeting.  Here are the
details:

CAPWAP WG Interim Meeting
Wednesday & Thursday, January 24 & 25, 2007 9:00am - 5:00pm (PDT) 3750
Cisco Way (Building 15) San Jose, CA, USA

More information about the CAPWAP WG can be found on our charter page:

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/capwap-charter.html

More information about the CAPWAP interim meeting, including
registration information and a full agenda, will be circulated on the
CAPWAP WG mailing list.  If you wish to join the CAPWAP mailing list, go
to:

http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Dan
(on behalf of the CAPWAP chairs)

 


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: ion-ion-store open for public comment

[Dave Crocker]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for you last sentence, perhaps it should give some pause.  The idea 
that we do not already have a pretty clear idea of what should 
distinguish an I-D from an ION ought to engender concern.  Like any 
other project consuming significant resources, an "experiment" is 
supposed to have reasonably clear statements of differentiation and 
expected benefit.


I personally believe that it is clear in RFC 4693. 


That's fine, Brian, but at least some of us were confused.

That ought to cause some concern.

I suspect concern divides between folks like me, who really didn't even 
understand the scope of the documents intended for this series, and others who 
remain unclear why the overhead of an entirely new publication mechanism is 
required.  Better writing -- an maybe better labeling -- will fix the former 
concern.  The latter concern is deeper.




(I also believe
we have a number of process BCPs that contain operational details
that don't really belong there, but pre-ION we had no systematic
way to handle such details.)


Sure.  And I wasn't commenting about prior publications.

On reflecting about the forces that seem to have led to the creation 
of the ION "experiment", I suspect that there are two concerns:  1) 
Needing a label that collects together internal operating notes and 
distinguishes them from other IETF documents, and 2) the overhead of 
getting an RFC published.


The first could be solved easily by adding a new, non-standard-track 
sub-label to the RFC series and I suspect the latter could be resolved 
by making an arrangement with the RFC Editor to have IONs go through 
less handling and proofing overhead. (And, gosh, this might even give 
a basis for reviewing why RFC publication has become high overhead...)


Again - this is exactly what we should discuss at the *end* of the
experiment, by which time we'll also have significant experience
with the new RFC Editor contract.


So you want to develop a community history with a new class of documents called 
ION that are published independently from any existing mechanism and then later 
consider re-homing them?


This highlights why the term "experiment" can be misleading.

If this sort of experiment is successful, then there will be significant 
disruption to the user base if the mechanism is moved to a new hosting mechanism.


(The irony, here, is that the Arpanet suffered this same problem.  Intended and 
used as an "experiment" it also immediately became so thoroughly useful as an 
operational communications infrastructure so that scheduling real experiments 
became problematic.)


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: nomcom:Soliciting feedback from entire working groups?

[Dave Crocker]

Sam Hartman wrote:

If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.

In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
address can see the short list of candidates.

At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public?



1. They are careful to say that the lists that are stuffed with some fake 
entries.  Although I respect the intention, this long-standing technique -- 
attempting to protect the privacy of actual candidates, is ineffective and 
wasteful.  It is particularly wasteful by having lots of folks asked to provide 
feedback about people who are not real candidates.


2. Using some method of restricting the query to "active" wg participants is a 
good idea.  Using the existance of a Tools account is one simple method.  It's 
always worth considering whether there are better criteria that are easy to 
implement, but the current approach is pretty reasonable.


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft status links on the wg pages?

[Dave Crocker]

Michael Thomas wrote:

Given that the Tools folk have created yet-another useful mechanism, making
each working group's page have a link to its related status information now
becomes a trivial effort, with substantial benefit.

Right, this is really cool -- although a link from the ietf wg page would be 
nice, the tools version almost looks like wg page v2.0 with a few additions 
(like the charter, milestones, etc.)



I hadn't thought of merging the existing wg page with the tools one.  I also 
never noticed that a pointer to the tools page is already on the official wg 
page.  It is right above "Chairs", slipping past the eye, after the Last 
Modified date. I also had entirely missed just how rich the tools page is.


The Status page really has two innovations.  One is the status information.

The other is the page format -- heading anbd side-column.  Most IETF pages are 
organized by information "topics".  The user gets to figure out what topic to 
query.  And, of course, this is often obvious.  Other times, not so much.


Although this one's heading uses topic terminology, it actually is organized for 
working group participant *activity*.  True activity-based design tends towards 
use of verbs rather than nouns, but given the list of links at the page heading, 
I think it covers all the things a participant would want to get at. (The fact 
that the "charter" link is in the middle of the list, rather than the beginning, 
is a pretty strong indicator that this is more oriented towards participants 
than towards folks trying to find out about the wg.  Of course, it serves the 
latter folks just fine.)


Activity-based GUI design has become a point of focus in the Usability field and 
seems to be far more productive that the classic style, which leaves it up to 
the user to figure out how to combine info queries together, to get work done.


 This page header should become the standard for all pages
 relating to a working group.

(Whether to also make the left-hand column universal for wg-related pages could 
be debated a bit. My first reaction was not to keep it, but the ability to jump 
between wgs does seem pretty appealing, and the display real estate cost of the 
feature isn't onerous.)




So my suggestions are:

1. Move these Status pages out of the "tools" development area and make them an 
official part of a working group's "official" pages.


2. Make the header standard for *all* working-group specific pages.

3. Remove the documents list from the WG charter page, since it is redundant 
with the Status page and less complete.



d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: nomcom:Soliciting feedback from entire working groups?

[Doug Ewell]

I received four of these, apparently on the strength of being an RFC 
author, and was immediately sure there had been a mistake.


Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

Judging from the email addresses where I received solicitations for 
comments, either every RFC author or every I-D author received an 
invitation to comment. (I suspect the latter, since the invitations 
seemed to be tailored by working group, i.e., an I-D in a Transport 
working group "earned" an invitation that included Transport 
candidates.)� Calling a candidate list distributed to all I-D authors 
private is polite fiction. I don't object to this effective public 
candidacy, but honesty in labeling might be called for.


--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft status links on the wg pages?

[Henrik Levkowetz]

Hi Dave, Frank,

on 2006-12-18 17:20 Frank Ellermann said the following:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>  
>> minor enhancement:  Put a link to that page on the working group's
>> main IETF page.

Good idea.  And actually already implemented some time ago.  Looking
at for instance the mip4 charter page, at 

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html

there is a line right above the listing of the Chairs which provides
an URL and link:

"Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mip4"

I think that's what you were looking for?

> There's a link to the Charter, isn't that the old main page ?

This refers to the link in the opposite direction, from tools.ietf.org
to www.ietf.org, which is also good to have, but not what Dave was
asking for, I think...


Henrik

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft status links on the wg pages?

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:



Bill Fenner wrote:

Mike,

 Check out http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ and see if that gives
you the view you're looking for.


Bill, thanks.  I suspect that's what Michael has in mind, except for 
one minor enhancement:  Put a link to that page on the working group's 
main IETF page.


A working group's main page really is its home page and, therefore, 
ought to bring together references to all relevant information.


Given that the Tools folk have created yet-another useful mechanism, 
making each working group's page have a link to its related status 
information now becomes a trivial effort, with substantial benefit.



Right, this is really cool -- although a link from the ietf wg page would be
nice, the tools version almost looks like wg page v2.0 with a few additions
(like the charter, milestones, etc.)

cheers, Mike

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft status links on the wg pages?

[Frank Ellermann]

Dave Crocker wrote:
 
> minor enhancement:  Put a link to that page on the working group's
> main IETF page.

There's a link to the Charter, isn't that the old main page ?

> A working group's main page really is its home page and, therefore,
> ought to bring together references to all relevant information.

The WG pages on the tools' site offer links to more relevant
information, therefore I consider this as their new main page.

Frank



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: nomcom:Soliciting feedback from entire working groups?

[Henning Schulzrinne]

Judging from the email addresses where I received solicitations for  
comments, either every RFC author or every I-D author received an  
invitation to comment. (I suspect the latter, since the invitations  
seemed to be tailored by working group, i.e., an I-D in a Transport  
working group "earned" an invitation that included Transport  
candidates.)  Calling a candidate list distributed to all I-D authors  
private is polite fiction. I don't object to this effective public  
candidacy, but honesty in labeling might be called for.


On Dec 18, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:






If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.

In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
address can see the short list of candidates.

At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public?


From: Nomcom06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: December 17, 2006 10:13:51 PM EST
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Pki4ipsec] Nomcom06: Security Area Director Candidate  
Feedback



Security Area Director Candidate Feedback

The NomCom solicits your input on the candidates it is reviewing for
the Security Area Director position.  It is a requirement
of the NomCom process that lists of candidates reviewed by the NomCom
are to be kept confidential. Therefore, when you receive the list of
candidates for review, you MUST keep it confidential and MUST NOT
share it with anyone else.  The NomCom requests that you provide your
input as soon as possible, for full consideration, please have them  
in no later than the end of the day, Tuesday, January 2, 2007.


Your input is a very important aspect of the process through which the
NomCom will make its selections for IETF leadership.  We encourage you
to review the list of candidates you have been asked to comment on and
provide us any input that might help us in our selection.  Please
provide input on as many candidates as you can; input to the effect of
"I'm not familiar with X" is acceptable and useful to the NomCom.

This year, the NomCom is accepting input on candidates through a
web-based tool.  Later in this message, you will find a URL through
which you can provide your input.

You may be asked for input on multiple positions that are under review
by the NomCom.  If you are asked for input on multiple positions, you
will receive separate e-mail requests for each position.

If you prefer to provide anonymous input, please send it directly to
the NomCom chair, Andrew Lange, [EMAIL PROTECTED], who
will make your input anonymous before forwarding it to the NomCom.   
Any
input you provide, whether it is provided to the NomCom directly  
through the web-based tool or anonymously, will be kept  
confidential and will not be shared outside the NomCom.


There are names in the lists of candidates for each position who have
declined nomination, which are included in the list to help protect
the confidentiality of actual candidates.  Also, if you are a
candidate for a position, your name will not appear in the list of
candidates for that position.  If you are a candidate for a position,
the NomCom will not accept anonymous input from you about other
candidates for the same position.

The web-based feedback tool gives the NomCom an automated process for
collecting input on the NomCom candidates.  We hope you will find it
more convenient to use as well.  Your input will be encrypted before
it is stored by the feedback tool, and can only be decrypted by the
NomCom.

Some individuals may be candidates for multiple positions.  If you
provide input for such a candidate for one position, the NomCom will
see that input for that candidate associated with each of the
positions.  You may provide additional input for specific positions,
by clicking on the candidate's name in the list of candidates for that
specific position.

The feedback form is available at the following URLs:

  https://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom06/input/

Please use your tools.ietf.org login with the email address you  
have been
invited with.  If you do not have a tools login, you can get one at  
this URL:


  https://www1.tools.ietf.org/newlogin

Again, the NomCom emphasizes that, if you use the feedback form to
provide input, you MUST keep the list of candidates confidential.

When you access the feedback form, you will see a list of all of the
candidates you have been asked to comment on.  By clicking on a
candidate's name, you will be presented with a text-input form into
which you can type your input.

Note that, because of the way in which the NomCom collected names and
e-mail addresses for individuals from whom input is solicited, we may
have more than one e-mail address for you and you may receive multiple
requests for feedback on the same position.  We apologize in advance
for any duplicate e-mail you may receive as a part of this feedback
solicitation process.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Andrew
__

Re: ion-ion-format open for public comment

[Frank Ellermann]

Julian Reschke wrote:

> IMHO it would be a good idea in the sense of "own dogfood" not to
> serve XHTML content with media type text/html.

Matter of taste, from my POV XHTML 1.0 transitional is the best way
to create backwards compatible (HTML 3.2) content "visible with any
browser".
  
Or as the ion-ion-format draft puts it:  "no fancy features".  If my
old browser sees some real XML it simply starts my text editor... ;-)

>> The HTML output of xml2rfc is rather ugly with my browser, and its
>> nice unpaginated output doesn't offer meta-data and I18N, tough :-(
 
> I18N?

Non-ASCII, the xml2rfc "txt" or "unpg" output is ASCII.  The HTML of
rfcmarkup is very nice, but at that point all meta-data and non-ASCII
is already lost.  Maybe xml2rfc should get a new XHTML output option,
not your "dogfod" of course, normal XHTML 1.0 transitional text/html.

Frank



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: nomcom:Soliciting feedback from entire working groups?

[Henrik Levkowetz]

Hi Sam,

Commenting only on the possibility of accessing the candidate list,
further down:

on 2006-12-18 15:37 Sam Hartman said the following:
> 
> If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
> is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.
> 
> In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
> address can see the short list of candidates.

I was alerted to this shortly after the invitations went out, and
removed the list address from the ACL.  

For a short while, somebody requesting a password for that address
(with the confirmation email and authentication hash going to the
same address, thus appearing on the list) could have set a password
and accessed the short list, but that's not possible any more.


Henrik


> At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject:
> [Pki4ipsec] Nomcom06: Security Area Director Candidate Feedback
> From:
> Nomcom06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:
> Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:13:51 +0100
> To:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> To:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> Security Area Director Candidate Feedback
> 
> The NomCom solicits your input on the candidates it is reviewing for
> the Security Area Director position.  It is a requirement
> of the NomCom process that lists of candidates reviewed by the NomCom
> are to be kept confidential. Therefore, when you receive the list of
> candidates for review, you MUST keep it confidential and MUST NOT
> share it with anyone else.  The NomCom requests that you provide your
> input as soon as possible, for full consideration, please have them in no 
> later than the end of the day, Tuesday, January 2, 2007.
> 
> Your input is a very important aspect of the process through which the
> NomCom will make its selections for IETF leadership.  We encourage you
> to review the list of candidates you have been asked to comment on and
> provide us any input that might help us in our selection.  Please
> provide input on as many candidates as you can; input to the effect of
> "I'm not familiar with X" is acceptable and useful to the NomCom.
> 
> This year, the NomCom is accepting input on candidates through a
> web-based tool.  Later in this message, you will find a URL through
> which you can provide your input.
> 
> You may be asked for input on multiple positions that are under review
> by the NomCom.  If you are asked for input on multiple positions, you
> will receive separate e-mail requests for each position.  
> 
> If you prefer to provide anonymous input, please send it directly to
> the NomCom chair, Andrew Lange, [EMAIL PROTECTED], who
> will make your input anonymous before forwarding it to the NomCom.  Any 
> input you provide, whether it is provided to the NomCom directly through the 
> web-based tool or anonymously, will be kept confidential and will not be 
> shared outside the NomCom.
> 
> There are names in the lists of candidates for each position who have
> declined nomination, which are included in the list to help protect
> the confidentiality of actual candidates.  Also, if you are a
> candidate for a position, your name will not appear in the list of
> candidates for that position.  If you are a candidate for a position,
> the NomCom will not accept anonymous input from you about other
> candidates for the same position.
> 
> The web-based feedback tool gives the NomCom an automated process for
> collecting input on the NomCom candidates.  We hope you will find it
> more convenient to use as well.  Your input will be encrypted before
> it is stored by the feedback tool, and can only be decrypted by the
> NomCom.
> 
> Some individuals may be candidates for multiple positions.  If you
> provide input for such a candidate for one position, the NomCom will
> see that input for that candidate associated with each of the
> positions.  You may provide additional input for specific positions,
> by clicking on the candidate's name in the list of candidates for that
> specific position.
> 
> The feedback form is available at the following URLs:
> 
>   https://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom06/input/
> 
> Please use your tools.ietf.org login with the email address you have been 
> invited with.  If you do not have a tools login, you can get one at this URL:
> 
>   https://www1.tools.ietf.org/newlogin
> 
> Again, the NomCom emphasizes that, if you use the feedback form to
> provide input, you MUST keep the list of candidates confidential.
> 
> When you access the feedback form, you will see a list of all of the
> candidates you have been asked to comment on.  By clicking on a
> candidate's name, you will be presented with a text-input form into
> which you can type your input.  
> 
> Note that, because of the way in which the NomCom collected names and
> e-mail addresses for individuals from whom input is solicited, we may
> have more than one e-mail address for you and you

nomcom:Soliciting feedback from entire working groups?

[Sam Hartman]

If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.

In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
address can see the short list of candidates.

At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public?

--- Begin Message ---
Security Area Director Candidate Feedback

The NomCom solicits your input on the candidates it is reviewing for
the Security Area Director position.  It is a requirement
of the NomCom process that lists of candidates reviewed by the NomCom
are to be kept confidential. Therefore, when you receive the list of
candidates for review, you MUST keep it confidential and MUST NOT
share it with anyone else.  The NomCom requests that you provide your
input as soon as possible, for full consideration, please have them in no later 
than the end of the day, Tuesday, January 2, 2007.

Your input is a very important aspect of the process through which the
NomCom will make its selections for IETF leadership.  We encourage you
to review the list of candidates you have been asked to comment on and
provide us any input that might help us in our selection.  Please
provide input on as many candidates as you can; input to the effect of
"I'm not familiar with X" is acceptable and useful to the NomCom.

This year, the NomCom is accepting input on candidates through a
web-based tool.  Later in this message, you will find a URL through
which you can provide your input.

You may be asked for input on multiple positions that are under review
by the NomCom.  If you are asked for input on multiple positions, you
will receive separate e-mail requests for each position.  

If you prefer to provide anonymous input, please send it directly to
the NomCom chair, Andrew Lange, [EMAIL PROTECTED], who
will make your input anonymous before forwarding it to the NomCom.  Any 
input you provide, whether it is provided to the NomCom directly through the 
web-based tool or anonymously, will be kept confidential and will not be shared 
outside the NomCom.

There are names in the lists of candidates for each position who have
declined nomination, which are included in the list to help protect
the confidentiality of actual candidates.  Also, if you are a
candidate for a position, your name will not appear in the list of
candidates for that position.  If you are a candidate for a position,
the NomCom will not accept anonymous input from you about other
candidates for the same position.

The web-based feedback tool gives the NomCom an automated process for
collecting input on the NomCom candidates.  We hope you will find it
more convenient to use as well.  Your input will be encrypted before
it is stored by the feedback tool, and can only be decrypted by the
NomCom.

Some individuals may be candidates for multiple positions.  If you
provide input for such a candidate for one position, the NomCom will
see that input for that candidate associated with each of the
positions.  You may provide additional input for specific positions,
by clicking on the candidate's name in the list of candidates for that
specific position.

The feedback form is available at the following URLs:

  https://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom06/input/

Please use your tools.ietf.org login with the email address you have been 
invited with.  If you do not have a tools login, you can get one at this URL:

  https://www1.tools.ietf.org/newlogin

Again, the NomCom emphasizes that, if you use the feedback form to
provide input, you MUST keep the list of candidates confidential.

When you access the feedback form, you will see a list of all of the
candidates you have been asked to comment on.  By clicking on a
candidate's name, you will be presented with a text-input form into
which you can type your input.  

Note that, because of the way in which the NomCom collected names and
e-mail addresses for individuals from whom input is solicited, we may
have more than one e-mail address for you and you may receive multiple
requests for feedback on the same position.  We apologize in advance
for any duplicate e-mail you may receive as a part of this feedback
solicitation process.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Andrew
___
pki4ipsec mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/pki4ipsec

--- End Message ---
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

HOKEY interim meeting on January 23rd

[Russ Housley]

The HOKEY WG will hold a one-day interim meeting.  The CAPWAP WG will 
hold an interim meeting at the same location on the two days 
following the HOKEY WG interim meeting. Here are the details:


HOKEY WG Interim Meeting
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (PDT)

3750 Cisco Way (Building 15)
San Jose, CA

Thanks,
  Russ



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft status links on the wg pages?

[Alexey Melnikov]

Dave Crocker wrote:

Given that the Tools folk have created yet-another useful mechanism, 
making each working group's page have a link to its related status 
information now becomes a trivial effort, with substantial benefit.


I agree about the benefits.
One thing I like about a tools wg page is that it clearly separates 
document which are already approved from the documents which are still 
being worked on.



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft status links on the wg pages?

[Jari Arkko]

Dave,
> Given that the Tools folk have created yet-another useful mechanism,
> making each working group's page have a link to its related status
> information now becomes a trivial effort, with substantial benefit.
This would be useful. (FWIW, I've already moved to using
only the tools page -- you get to everywhere where you
need from the tools page, including the official charter
page.)

--Jari



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: ion-ion-format open for public comment

[Julian Reschke]

Frank Ellermann schrieb:

Brian Carpenter wrote:
 

Please see
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-ion-format.txt


It says "text or html", but ion-ion-store is perfectly valid XHTML.
Is that a problem ?


IMHO it would be a good idea in the sense of "own dogfood" not to serve 
XHTML content with media type text/html.



The HTML output of xml2rfc is rather ugly with my browser, and its
nice unpaginated output doesn't offer meta-data and I18N, tough :-(


I18N?


...


Best regards, Julian

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: ion-ion-format open for public comment

[Brian E Carpenter]

Frank Ellermann wrote:

Brian Carpenter wrote:
 


Please see
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-ion-format.txt



It says "text or html", but ion-ion-store is perfectly valid XHTML.
Is that a problem ?


I don't think so, do you?


The HTML output of xml2rfc is rather ugly with my browser, and its
nice unpaginated output doesn't offer meta-data and I18N, tough :-(

The HTML output is apparently also no valid HTML (tested with your
ion-procdoc draft), they forgot ' in HTML 4.01, and apparently
 needs a closing  - with HTML I never know, XHTML is KISS.


That is one for the xml2rfc list I think.


The SVN access doesn't work yet (authentification fails).


And that's the one you're discussing with Henrik.

   Brian

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: ion-ion-store open for public comment

[Brian E Carpenter]

Dave Crocker wrote:



Brian E Carpenter wrote:

So internet drafts, however ephemeral we claim them to be, are  
versioned and referenceable. I don't know that the final step (the  
RFC) is any less permanent than the history we maintain of the 
drafts  leading up to it.



That's beside the point. This is nothing to do with RFC development.
This is for stuff that will (almost certainly) never be an RFC.





In short, under what circumstances would I post an ION instead of an  
internet draft? 



If you were, for example, the maintainer of 1id-guidelines.

Anyway - again, this is an experiment, and yours are the questions
to be asked at the end of the experiment.



Brian, et al,

The basic desire to collect together the documents that the IETF uses 
for its "internal" operations strikes me as simple and entirely 
pragmetic. (I have to note that until this latest set of postings, I 
thought that ION's somehow competed with BCPs, by virtue of being 
related to operations.)


One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing 
number of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to 
know enough about IETF procedures and the like, but it is clear that the 
body of documents are better collected under one reference roof than 
being strewn around.


As for you last sentence, perhaps it should give some pause.  The idea 
that we do not already have a pretty clear idea of what should 
distinguish an I-D from an ION ought to engender concern.  Like any 
other project consuming significant resources, an "experiment" is 
supposed to have reasonably clear statements of differentiation and 
expected benefit.


I personally believe that it is clear in RFC 4693. (I also believe
we have a number of process BCPs that contain operational details
that don't really belong there, but pre-ION we had no systematic
way to handle such details.)

On reflecting about the forces that seem to have led to the creation of 
the ION "experiment", I suspect that there are two concerns:  1) Needing 
a label that collects together internal operating notes and 
distinguishes them from other IETF documents, and 2) the overhead of 
getting an RFC published.


The first could be solved easily by adding a new, non-standard-track 
sub-label to the RFC series and I suspect the latter could be resolved 
by making an arrangement with the RFC Editor to have IONs go through 
less handling and proofing overhead. (And, gosh, this might even give a 
basis for reviewing why RFC publication has become high overhead...)


Again - this is exactly what we should discuss at the *end* of the
experiment, by which time we'll also have significant experience
with the new RFC Editor contract.

Although probably warranting an entirely separate thread, it might again 
be worth revisiting the question of archival access to expired I-Ds.  
The number of times that folks suffer from not being able to easily get 
access to old copies is growing. The most obvious of these is for 
intellectual property research, but one that is closer to home is to be 
able to aid in assessing the sequence of changes that a document went 
through, by way of responding to improvements in working group discussions.


Indeed it's a separate topic...

   Brian

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf