> It's kind of a good fences makes good neighbors kind of thing.
but Frost was arguing just the reverse
http://www.bartleby.com/118/2.html
(in case anyone is confused - in pointing the above out I am not
saying anything about the need for a Pre-nup agreement in this case -
just showing I read
> I did postfix "whenever possible" and prefix "as a matter of
> principle" ... this simply says if you're not going to do it
> v
another thing to appeal ? :-)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scott -
I did postfix "whenever possible" and prefix "as a matter of
principle" ... this simply says if you're not going to do it
that way, please have a reason.
Regards,
Carl
>
> Carl suggests:
> > 2.2.6 currently reads:
>
> > The right to use any intellectual property rights created by a
On what kinds of grounds should such things be appealable?
For WG decisions, there can be appeals based on technical grounds or
procedural grounds.
The ISOC however may only here pure procedural appeals.
I would hate to see someone "appeal" an IAD decision because they happened
to disagree with
Carl suggests:
> 2.2.6 currently reads:
> The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
> IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in
> any way by ISOC from the IETF.
>
> You could simply append:
>
> As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ens
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any IASA-related
or
IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in any way by ISOC from the IETF.
You could simply append:
As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ensure that any contracts
for IAS
At 10:54 AM 2/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1 dec 2004, at 22.35, Sam Hartman wrote:
I had sort of assumed this BCP would be the MOU to the extent that one
existed.
I think that there has to be an equivalent document on the ISOC side as
indicated by Geoff, i.e. a document indicating accepta
> BTW, are the ISOC minutes all public?
yes - see
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/documents.shtml
as is the normal case, some issues (like personnel issues) that come up in
BoT meetings are not made public but that is rare
> And how long do they take to show up
it varies, not as fas
> It is a small thing, but on something this important, I would like to
> see a formal statement of acceptance and not rely on minutes. I do not
> understand why asking for a response document committing the ISOC BOT
> to the BCP is a problem?
I quite specifically did not comment on that sugge
On 2 dec 2004, at 23.00, Scott Bradner wrote:
This leaves any minuted decision in limbo for another
meeting interval.
I do not understand - in all boards I've been a part of the
decision is the decision, the minutes just report the decision - it
does not matter when the minutes get approved, the de
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Clearly, if IPv6 PI space spirals out of control like many
> operators think will happen, we need to find a way to make
> BGP (and possibly forwarding) performance not dependent on
> the number of prefixes in the table.
I agree 100%, but this is easier said than done: if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an
> attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as
> specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process
> for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think we need explos
> This leaves any minuted decision in limbo for another
> meeting interval.
I do not understand - in all boards I've been a part of the
decision is the decision, the minutes just report the decision - it
does not matter when the minutes get approved, the decision was
made when teh decision was m
Works for me to.
> Harald suggests
> Suggested edit: Change
>
> > Note that the goal is to achieve and maintain a viable IETF support
> > function based on meeting fees and designated donations. The IETF
> > community expects the IAOC and ISOC to work together to attain that goal,
> >
W.r.t.
>
> I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the
> right thing, given
> Rob's explanation of "divisional accounting", and using
> "account" in the sense of "what's accounted for".
>
This seems obvious, and I knew we had to re-check for
consistency after we changed the text f
Can we have other peoples opinion on this topic as well?
Bert
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 16:31
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Adminrest: section 3.4
>
>
> > So
Scott writes:
>
> draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 4 also says
>The members of the IAOC choose their own chair each year using a
>consensus mechanism of their choosing. Any appointed voting member
>of the IAOC may serve as the IAOC Chair; the IETF Administrative
>Director, the IETF
At 09:11 02/12/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
terms of the BCP - it might also contain term
on 2004-12-02 9:58 am Brian E Carpenter said the following:
> Scott Bradner wrote:
>> the new draft asks:
>> Do we need wording about the ownership of IETF tools and data? We
>> have some text (in Section 2.2) about IPR, but does that fully
>> cover tools and data?
>>
>> fwiw -
> Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
> and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
> ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
> terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about
> money and IPR,
Harald, Scott,
This is much better and gives a good degree of flexibility.
Regards,
Lynn
At 11:31 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I don't think there is any principle in 2.2 that forms a basis for
saying that we need to aim towards limiting IETF support to meeting
fees and design
Harald, yes, that would read much better and is closer to what I
believe our combined intent was/is.
Regards,
Lynn
At 11:23 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right
thing, given Rob's explanation of "divisional accounting",
> Would it not be nice if ISOC could sort of designate a yearly
> amount to go to IETF instead of having to just cough up whatever
> budget gap we seem to have?
yes but that is unrelated to my comment which only delt with the
fact that the text seems to rule out ISOC support from sources
other th
> I also am thinking to change text (a little bit futher down)
> from
>The two NomCom-selected IAOC members
> into
>The two NomCom-appointed IAOC members
good catch
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/li
> So in light of this, would you still suggest your change of text?
yes - I read the text as a specific instruction to the IAOC to
implement the begining of the paragraph - i.e. its not enough
that the IESG & IAB are OK with the support they are getting they
have to consider the support the whole
Makes a lot of sense to me.
Consider it done.
I also am thinking to change text (a little bit futher down)
from
The two NomCom-selected IAOC members
into
The two NomCom-appointed IAOC members
Bert (speaking as editor)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PR
Personal opinion.
Would it not be nice if ISOC could sort of designate a yearly
amount to go to IETF instead of having to just cough up whatever
budget gap we seem to have?
Bert
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:
Scott writes:
>
> draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 says
>The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
>cannot be achieved, the IAOC chair may conduct informal polls to
>determine the consensus of the group. In cases where it is
>necessary, some decisions m
I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an
attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as
specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process
for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think we need explosive
bolts or any other prearran
Not sure if this refers to what I said in an earlier not about
indicating when the process goes into effect.
Harald indicated that process BCP approval is indicated by an
indication in the ISOC BoT minutes that the BCP was acceptable.
I have a slight problem with minutes as the criteria. In b
Scott writes:
>
> draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.4 says
>
> 3.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
>
>The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
>performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work
>involves treating the IESG and
In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds.
By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at
various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example
if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come
in time for the yea
I tend to feel that both the decisions of the IAD and of the IAOC
should be appealable.
My thinking tends toward thinking that anyone should be able to appeal
the decision, or any practice including the accounting practices, of
the IAD. I believe we are defining high standards of transparency,
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> section 5.3 goes on to say Designated monetary donations
Scott> will be credited to the appropriate IASA account.
Scott> a left over reference to a seperate account
To me this doesn't imply bank accounts; internal acco
On Dec 02, 2004, at 11:11, Mark Miller wrote:
Using BitTorrent and the growing popularity of VoIP comes to mind. (A
shame that Asterisk does not currently support IPv6 though.)
Asterisk community is seeing some effort (particularly from someone
quite familiar to the IETF: Marc Blanchet), and folk
Brian suggests:
Maybe we need a much more restricted right of appeal. Strawperson:
Decisions of the IAOC are subject to appeal exclusively on the
grounds
that they have materially damaged correct execution of the IETF
standards process [RFC2026]. They follow the appeals process
applicable to
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> but as I said before - I expect we will be close to failure
Scott> if the IAD proceeds on the basis of a close vote in the
Scott> IAOC. I'd rather that mininum vote required to proceed (in
Scott> those cases where a
Harald suggests
Suggested edit: Change
> Note that the goal is to achieve and maintain a viable IETF support
> function based on meeting fees and designated donations. The IETF
> community expects the IAOC and ISOC to work together to attain that goal,
> and recognizes that doing so wi
Harald suggestes:
> I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right thing,
I woke up this am having decided in my sleep (not a good sign in
and of itself) to suggest the same thing
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://ww
Brian suggests:
Maybe we need a much more restricted right of appeal. Strawperson:
Decisions of the IAOC are subject to appeal exclusively on the grounds
that they have materially damaged correct execution of the IETF
standards process [RFC2026]. They follow the appeals process
applicabl
At the plenary, we showed the following dates for further work:
- Revised BCP document: December 1
- Last Call: December 1 to December 28
- IESG approval: January 6
As many probably have noted, December 1 was yesterday - we got a new
version, but it has enough of a list of open issues that it seem
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:04:05 +0100, Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The average Internet user (home user or enterprise administrator)
> > > does not care about the end-to-end principle or the architectural
> > > purity of the Internet.
> >
> > Maybe not the average user
--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 09:11:27 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I should also note that the current IASA BCP is quite vague about how the
ISOC is to assist the IASA in reaching the desired level of working
capital. One could interpret this as being purely an IASA ope
I don't think there is any principle in 2.2 that forms a basis for saying
that we need to aim towards limiting IETF support to meeting fees and
designated donations.
The situation we have now is (I think) that a lot of people support ISOC
because they want to support the IETF, but do not requir
The awarding of a contract to a vendor is an IAD decision, and as written,
IAD decisions are not appealable.
The decision that could be appealed is the IAOC's approval of the IAD
decision - a subtle difference, but an important one; the appeal would have
to be based on arguing that the IAOC did
I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right thing, given
Rob's explanation of "divisional accounting", and using "account" in the
sense of "what's accounted for".
We do have consensus that the IASA has to account for the money that it
handles to the community.
I think 5.1, w
I'd like the word "other" kept in (the reference is to the set of process
documents, of which this document is one member, but one that has no
requirements on the ExDir role). But I can live with either too :-)
A nit: since this paragraph now describes a responsibility of the IAOC, not
the IAD,
Scott Bradner wrote:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 goes on to say:
Decisions of IAOC members or the entire IAOC are subject to appeal
using the procedures described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. Appeals of
IAOC decisions go first to the IESG, then continue up the chain as
necessary to th
Scott Bradner wrote:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 says
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved, the IAOC chair may conduct informal polls to
determine the consensus of the group. In cases where it is
necessary, some decisions may be
Scott Bradner wrote:
the new draft asks:
Do we need wording about the ownership of IETF tools and data? We
have some text (in Section 2.2) about IPR, but does that fully
cover tools and data?
fwiw - my intention in the text that is now 2.2(6) was to cover the
tools and data
Sub
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> But all of this is only delaying the inevitable (not that that can't
> be useful sometimes): at some point, we need to move away from the
> premise that all default-free routers must know about all reachable
> prefixes.
But isn't this the *definition* of a default-fr
Bernard Aboba wrote:
I'm also slightly surprised by this perspective (a distinct MoU). I had
though that the process we were following was that this IASA BCP would be a
document that was formally accepted by both the IETF (through the BCP
publication process) and by ISOC (possibly through a formal
52 matches
Mail list logo
