I can not say much more than that I fully agree with Scott and
others who question the actual gain from going with scenario C.
To me, O seems to be what we need today, and I can not see what
additional benefits C would give, rather the opposite, as Scott
has pointed out below.
/Lars-Erik
From: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
Hi Bert,
Both you and Ted have posted preferences for Scenario C that, to me,
seem
On Thursday, September 23, 2004 22:17:14 -0700 Tony Hain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the I-D Editor is a fundamental cornerstone in our document process,
and therefore deserves to be explicit. Personally I don't have a problem
with moving the function to better align with the RFC Editor's
The discussion on IETF restructuring has had a few strong voices, some
different opinions, and a lot of listeners.
My talks with people have convinced me that many of those who have said
nothing are indeed following the debate - some of them have opinions on
what to do, some think that others
Disclaimer: I haven't read all of the Scenario O and Scenario C
proposals.
( Yes, I am sitting two rows away from my screen. )
On the subject of a new incorporated entity ( Scenario C ) versus an
already incorporated entity ( Scenario O ), the arguments in my mind
stack up thus:
Scenario C:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 07:03:41AM +0300, John Loughney wrote:
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.
I suspect this
On 24 sep 2004, at 11.20, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
So please - take a look, and tell us that you're listening.
http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/
I think the poll was a good idea, I hope lots of people take it. I
know I had been reading and generally agreeing with
Since you've gone through the trouble of creating a web page, it would be
really nice to have links to all the relevant restructuring docs, existing
procedures and so on. I was looking for just such a link to point my
readers to so that they could join or follow these discussion, but I gave
up and
Micheal,
The 62nd and 64th IETF Meetings will be held in the
United States. The 63rd IETF Meeting will be held in
Paris, France.
Marcia
Marcia Beaulieu
Sr. Meeting Planner
Foretec Seminars, Inc.
1895 Preston White Drive
Reston, VA 20191
Phone:
Harald,
When I try to invoke this URL, I get a very impressive display
that says
Python 2.3.4: /usr/bin/python
Fri Sep 24 21:32:36 2004
A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the
sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in
the
My current view is that the housing the IETF administrative activity in
ISOC (Scenario O) is the best of the two approaches.
Note: I have no position in the ISOC nor am a current member (or maybe they
do not have members these days). My employer is a corporate member. I was
a member when the
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[snip]
There's a poll up at
http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/ that gives you
a chance to say that you're listening - and IF you have an opinion on
the current alternative scenarios, to state it.
[snip]
To those who have answered the poll, but
John, and others,
First, let me plead with all of you who would prefer to ignore
this --and I certainly understand the feeling-- do technical
work, and let others decide to _not_ do that. If implementation
of these changes begins, and then fails, it is, IMO, unlikely
that we will have a
Bert,
well, I think we will just have to agree to disagree
people have heard both of our opinions and should express their own
on the list /or in Harald's survey tool
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob == Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob The ISOC is certainly not perfect and has had serious
Bob problems in the past. These problems have been solved and as
Bob far as I can tell the ISOC is working well. I would note
Bob that the ISOC was initially set up by
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose that, as a result, we end up with no meetings for six months or a year, no organized support for the IESG, and lots of us scrambling around to try to maintain mailing lists and archives on a volunteer basis. Would the IETF pull through? Maybe.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RADIUS Attributes Sub-option for the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option '
draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
17 matches
Mail list logo
