So, as I see it, we can choose scenario C which includes
this bureaucratic work, as well as many other pieces of
bureaucratic work, or we can choose scenario O in which all
this work was done ten years ago.
Brian
Karl Auerbach wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote:
ISOC is non-profit,
Some comments:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case of a canceled meeting after the
contracts had been signed? Something like:
Also, in
Let me repeat
The Scenario C document does NOT propose to incorporate the IETF !
It proposed to incorporate IASF (the IETF Administrative Support Foundation)
which is quite a different beast. We keep trying to make that clear,
but it seems we still fail to do so. Please DO read carefully
Doo Timbir wrote:
Dear Hadmut,
This is a very good piece of information.
Dear Doo, what does the piece say? Because I can't access Mercury news
without creating an account on their site, i.e. leaving my info to them
and storing their password on my keyfile.
Alex
--- Hadmut Danisch [EMAIL
So what we need is more people from the IETF community to speak up
and tell us what they think. This is an important decision we (as IETF)
need to make, and we better make it sooner than later.
I am surprised to see so few people react. So may I ask:
ALL IETFers, PLEASE DO REVIEW the
Hi Bert,
Both you and Ted have posted preferences for Scenario C that, to me,
seem to say We will eventually have to go to Scenario C, anyway, so
we should undertake that effort today rather than leaving it for
later. This might be a compelling argument if it were clear to me
that we will
I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to follow. It appears
to me to be the lowest risk path consistent with the needs that have been
identified.
Two minor comments:
1) The references to the IASF bank account should probably be relaxed to
IASF fund accounts or IASF accounts.
Dear colleagues,
This is going to be difficult to explain but I have a feeling that the
current process of getting to a new structure is somewhat of a layer
violation. I think that applying the standards process to a management
issue is not that efficient.
What I am trying to expand below is: I
Hi Tony,
Great feedback. Thanks! A few comments in-line:
At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case
Joel... just to be clear...
I suspect that in the below you meant
IASA (IETF Administrative Support Activity)
which is defined in Scenario O
and not
IASF (IETF Administartive Support Foundation)
which is defined in Scenario C
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Joel M.
Yes, in minor comment 1 I meant the IASA bank account(s) or fund
account(s), not the IASF accounts. (I believe that the scenario C document
avoid this particular pitfall, since it did not need to talk about
segregation of funds.)
Sorry to mix names.
Yours,
Joel
At 05:12 PM 9/23/2004 +0200,
At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case of a canceled meeting after the
contracts had been
Hi Joel,
At 10:35 AM -0400 9/23/04, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Two minor comments:
1) The references to the IASF bank account should probably be
relaxed to IASF fund accounts or IASF accounts. As written, it
presumes that there is exactly one bank account, and that separation
of funds is by bank
--On 23. september 2004 10:35 -0400 Joel M. Halpern
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) The schedule calls for seating the IAOC on January 15, and hiring the
IAD by the end of January. Given that the search committee can not be
appointed until the board is seated, it seems that item is either an
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
themselves and get
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
themselves and get
But I bet not for tragic events like terrorist strikes/threats or war related
issues. So setting up some reserves of our own seems better to me.
those options are not exclusive
it's a very good idea to have reserves, its also a good idea to
explore event cancellation insurance
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree with Harald that v4 NATs are going to be here a decade
from now. But that's irrelevant, if those people using the NAT
only use simple client-server applications.
Harald
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The point is which kind of applications you can reasonably expect to
deploy behind an IPv4 NAT, and be happy.
I agree with Harald that v4 NATs are going to be here a decade from
now. But that's irrelevant, if those people using the NAT
From: Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well my house was behind 2 levels of NAT until last week.
Once i got rid of one level (the one I don't control), some of my
operational problems with keeping SSH sessions up simply went away.
And SSH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Vernon == Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vernon Perhaps more NAT RFCs would help; they couldn't hurt much.
Vernon They'd be a lot of work and would certainly be ignored by
Vernon many people who consider themselves designers. I can't
Bert said:
From what I have seen/read sofar, my preference is to go for Scenario C.
Yes, Scenario O seems somewhat simpler.
Yes, Scenario O seems acceptable today.
Scott answered
just to be clear it is my opinion that
Scenario O is significantly simpler
and that Scenario C
I think that either Scenario is perfectly workable, but my
own preference is for Scenario C. I have read the email from John and
others about the possible dangers of incorporation, and the added
complexity, etc., and they strike me as valid concerns about Scenario
C. But my own inclinations are
Bert justifies by:
Besides my (wordy) response to you back on Sept 4th (or 3rd in US)
as availabe at:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31057.html
which I read as saying
I distrust the IETF's ability to react if things get bad
with the ISOC
I do not
Actually, as far as I can tell the accountability is about the same in both
cases, and in neither case as direct as one would philosophically like
(but probably as direct as one can get in practice.) Similarly, the
change control appears to be equally in the IETF hands.
Yours,
Joel
At 10:31
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ted Hardie) wrote on 21.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
creating the appropriate corporate realities. A major disagreement
that we seem to have is whether any additional work that may be required to
create the appropriate corporate realities is worth the options it
buys now
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John C Klensin) wrote on 21.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(time to change the subject line enough to do some
differentiation)
... but presumably this was the wrong change?
MfG Kai
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
the web site says:
Spring 2005 - 62nd IETF
March 6-11, 2005
Location: TBD
Summer 2005 - 63rd IETF
July 31-Aug 5, 2005
Location: TBD
Fall 2005 - 64th IETF
November 6-11, 2005
Location: TBD
I wonder, even if the
Title: Converted from Rich Text
I've skimmed the recent documents and have come away feeling rather
uninterested in the topic. As with most others, I asume, I'm more interested
in technical work not aministrative or reorg work.
What I assumed would happen is that we would hire a
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
2.3 Budget -
The specific timeline will be established each year, before the
second IETF meeting.
Wouldn't it be cleaner to just specify that the budget process will be
completed in the first half of the calendar year? That would be more
consistent
Well to be clear, I bothered to comment on scenario O since I believe it is
really the only viable path. It id always nice to do the 'independent'
thing, but basic economics says it won't fly in the short term, and will
always be more costly than O in the long term.
A non-profit corporation that
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Security Area.
For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or
the WG Chairs.
Integrated Security Model for SNMP (isms)
=
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s):
Ken Hornstein
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs'
draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivivy '
draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-04.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
34 matches
Mail list logo
