Re: Nomcom 2007-8 Chair's Report

2008-03-06 Thread Cary FitzGerald
Ralph,

Thanks for your kind words.  Indeed the nomcom members have put in a lot
of hard work and as such deserve recognition.

For the most part, the credit for the conception of the report goes to
the circumstances that led to dispute resolution during the confirmation
process.  RFC 3777 says that the chair is to include the dispute report
when reporting on the activities of the nominating committee.  Normally
we report on the activities of the nomcom during the IESG plenary.  But,
when there is a dispute report, it appears that a supplementary means of
publishing the report is necessary.

That said, I agree with you that, keeping the confidentiality issues
firmly in mind, future nomcom chairs should publish such reports in an
attempt to make the nomcom process as open as possible.  I hope that the
openness helps increase community participation in the process and
encourage people to volunteer to be a voting member, provide feedback
and accept nominations more so than in the past.

best regards,
Lakshminath

On 3/6/2008 7:57 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Lakshminath - thanks a lot for publishing this report.  We all
> appreciate and applaud the work you and the Nomcom put into this  
> year's
> I* selections, and I especially appreciate that you invested the time
> and effort - after all that earlier hard work - to produce this  
> report.
> It will be of great value to future Nomcom chairs as well as the
> community as a whole, and I hope future Nomcom chairs will sustain the
> custom of producing similar reports (now I wish I had produced a  
> report
> like yours after I served as Nomcom chair).
>
> - Ralph
>
> On Mar 5, 2008, at Mar 5, 2008,6:05 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
>> https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report.  Please  
>> direct
>> any comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I will make a brief presentation at  
>> the
>> IESG plenary.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>   This document reports on the work of Nomcom 2007-8.  The topics of
>>   discussion include the experiences in starting the nomcom process
>>   early enough to facilitate the nomcom to do their work at 2 face- 
>> to-
>>   face meetings, the various logistical challenges involved in the
>>   nomcom process and the differing interpretations of RFC 3777 by
>>   different people and organizations involved in the process.  This
>>   document also discusses the challenges in the interaction between  
>> the
>>   nomcom and the confirmation bodies.
>>
>> regards,
>> Lakshminath
>> ___
>> IETF mailing list
>> IETF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


Re: To address or NAT to address?

1999-12-01 Thread Cary FitzGerald

Christian:

Is this something that you think is an inherent flaw in DNS?  Will this new class
of servers be less susceptible to congestion?

Cary.

Christian Huitema wrote:

> At 10:49 PM 11/30/99 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >note also that DNS is often slow, and seems less reliable than IP.
> >by increasing the reliance on DNS you increase the probability of failure.
>
> Data point: out of 40,000 random DNS requests logged on my work station
> over the last year, 20% underwent at least one retransmission, resulting in
> service times larger than 2 seconds. The average packet loss rate on the
> regular IP service only explain about half of these retransmissions, which
> makes me suspect that a lot of additional losses are caused by congested
> DNS servers. Increasing our reliance on the DNS is definitely not a good idea.
> -- Christian Huitema