Re: [IETF] RE: Time in the Air
On 31 May 2013 20:56, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > You are right, Wellington is almost 7 degrees south of Montevideo, > although I hope it's better served by airlines :D > also nearer the equator than most of Europe; a geographical fact of life that has been conveniently ignored in the discussion thus far! (with the conspicuous exception of Mark Nottingham's numerical attack on the topic).
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
On 27 February 2013 08:46, Stefan Winter wrote: > Hi, > >> [...] ferkakte [...] > > As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've > successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being speechlessly > shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process. > You got off lightly. The English exported an entire language which got b0rked in the process!
Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]
On 9 January 2013 01:19, John Day wrote: [snip] > > One person's gap is another person's bug. What may be obvious to one as > something that must occur may not be so to the other. Then there is that > fine line between what part of the specification is required for the > specification and what part is the environment of the implementation. Disagree A gap in the specification will result in all implementations having the same unintended behaviour, because the developers understood and followed the spec 100%. Bugs are distinguishable from gaps because they occur in some implementations but not others and arise from misinterpretation of some aspect of the specification. In this context, over-engineering is a bug, as distinct from competitive advantage. Dick --
Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]
On 5 January 2013 19:14, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: [snip] > > Another way to look at it would be to run the following experiment: > > 1. Someone design a new protocol, something simple but not obvious, and write > in a formal language and keep it secret. > Which raises the obvious question: Why do we not write protocol specs in a formal specification language instead of struggling with the ambiguities of natural language? Theorem provers and automated verification tools could then be brought to bear on both specifiations and implementations. Dick --
Re: Last Call: (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
On 12 December 2012 01:14, Mark Nottingham wrote: [snip] > > Personally -- to me, it seems like you're getting hung up on the word "add." > We've had a few bits of feedback, where people try to map a particular > meaning of one of the operation names to a programming language or other > system. In this format, "add" means what the format definition says it means, > because otherwise we have to rationalise all of the different systems people > might use it with to make sense. > "When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Lewis Carroll. Through the Looking Glass. 1872.
Re: Exceptional cases (was: don't overthink)
and IAOC is unable to change its own quorum requirement because . . . it can't achieve the necessary quorum!! Now that _is_ a serious administrative oversight. -- On 26 October 2012 02:21, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:19:26PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote: >> >> Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an >> extended period is inhibiting their activities. > > This is the part which really confuses me. Why is this such an urgent > matter? > > The stated reason in the IAOC request for community feedback was > difficulty in getting a quorum: > > "Given the size of the IAOC, a missing member makes it much > harder to get a quorum." > > I was trying to figure out what the quorum requirements were, so I > checked out RFC 4071. There I found: > >The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making rules, >including its rules for quorum, conflict of interest, and breaking of >ties. These rules shall be made public. > > I am not sure these are latest rules, but [1] states: > > "A quorum for a meeting of the IAOC shall be a majority of the > IAOC then in office. All decisions of the members must be > approved by majority vote of the members then in office." > > [1] http://iaoc.ietf.org/docs/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-9-16-2010.pdf > > So that means the quorum requirement is 5 people --- out of the 9 > IAOC members. OK, so if Marshall has been AWOL, there must be at > least four other people who are also not showing up if quorom is not > being achieved, which would seem to indicate a problem that extends > beyond just that of a single person. > > The other potential problem is that the decision making process seems > to currently require a majority of the IAOC members, and not a > majority of the IAOC members who are attending a meeting. This means > that if only five IAOC members attend an IAOC meeting, all five would > have to act unaminously to make a decision. > > Still, I'm curious why the absence of one person is so great that > people want to make emergency rule changes and why people are treating > this as some kind of constitutional crisis. Is there part of the > story which I am missing? > > Regards, > > - Ted > > P.S. And if the IAOC is empowered to change its quorum and decision > making rules, is there some reason why they can't unanimously (if > there are only five people who are paying attention and attending > meetings) chose to set quorom to be say 3 or 4 people, and perhaps > only require a majority of the IAOC members in attendance? > > This is something that appears could be done without having to make > any variances to existing procedure, or to make any emergency rule > changes. >
Re: In Memoriam IETF web page -- a modest proposal
On 22 October 2012 21:25, Steve Crocker wrote: > After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps > not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for > each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC > Editorial process will provide some vetting on quality. Use Informational, > Historic(!) or create a new class. > > The memorial page can then list those who have memorial RFCs written for them. OBITWG will need a charter, chair and mailing list.
Re: In Memoriam IETF web page
+1 Better not to start a "tradition" which will become an intolerable encumbrance even before we do! On 21 October 2012 18:10, Benson Schliesser wrote: > I feel a little bad saying this, because these individuals deserve > recognition. But I rather think this memorial page is not a good idea. > > If the IETF is around long enough, eventually all members of the community > will die. (Unless medical science makes some amazing achievements, I > suppose...) It's easy today to recognize a few people that made large > contributions earlier in the IETF's history. But at some point the list will > grow large, until it has lost its significance. And yet, at that point, it > may be unseemly to stop the tradition, and even more unseemly to delete the > existing memorial. > > I don't want to be insensitive, and I'm sorry to point this out. But I think > we're better off with heart-felt, personal memorials from living people that > remember and care about the departed. > > -Benson
