Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

Hi, two problems in draft-phillips-langtags-08.txt : 1 - ISO 3166-1 is dead This memo should not be used in new Internet standards, see A reference to some obscure 1998 edition of ISO 3166-1 doesn't help, would it include

Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: Consensus? Separate bank account)

Hi Avri and John, I interpreted Harald's note differently than you did... I took this part: After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling this issue. To mean that Harald is _not_ starting the IETF Last Call as scheduled.

Re: bcp-02: Section 3.4

I tend to agree. As I mentioned in another note, I too am uncomfortable with the appeal procedures. In my case, I am not so much concerned about the ability to overturn decisions, such as contracts that are signed, as I have accepted that allowing this might make the job impossible. But I am c

Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: ...

Margaret sez: > I took this part: > > >>> After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad > >>> to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling > >>> this issue. > > To mean that Harald is _not_ starting the IETF Last Call as scheduled. the message in question was s

Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: ...

Oh, in that case, I echo your concern... We should have had a proposed final document in front of us before the IETF LC was started. Margaret At 7:46 AM -0500 12/11/04, Scott Bradner wrote: Margaret sez: I took this part: >>> After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad >>>

Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: Consensus? Separate bank account)

--On fredag, desember 10, 2004 18:26:08 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Harald, This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of the note below and the general support your suggestion has gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called is not draft-ie

Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: Consensus? Separate bank account)

--On Saturday, 11 December, 2004 12:58 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed. > > But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a > problem as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the > 02-bis you refer to) is different i

Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

I have talked privately to some folks (including ISOC Board members) about this, and I think it's high time to start seriously thinking about it: The BCP is the *IETF's* description of what the *IETF* expects out of this administrative function. But a good deal of the structure we're describin

Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt

Hi All, Here are my last call comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt. I have included enough context that I hope you will be able to understand where my comments apply. If not, just ask. My comments are marked with '>>' in-line below. I am afraid that this is quite a long list. In my opinion

Re: Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

Pete, I understand your concern, but I don't think it is necessary. Worse, I suspect that, were ISOC to start changing their bylaws in this sort of direction and in ways that would actually provide the guarantees you want, they would reasonably insist on reciprocal provisions that would prevent IE

Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5

Hi - > From: "Bruce Lilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:54 PM > Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 ... > Eliminating bilingual descriptions for the language, > country (and UN region) codes leaves imple

RE: bcp-02: Section 3.4

Avri writes: > Unless I am missing something in the document, there is no way for a > member of the IETf community to formally ask the IAOC to review the > decisions of the IAD. Since when would you not be allowed to send an email/complaint to the IAOC ?? I guess you meant to say that there is

Re: Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

On 12/11/04 at 3:07 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: I suspect that, were ISOC to start changing their bylaws in this sort of direction and in ways that would actually provide the guarantees you want, they would reasonably insist on reciprocal provisions that would prevent IETF from unwinding the

A hackers root kit - and what they did.

A hacker broke into one of my systems using a consultants weak password and installed a root kit. Fortunately they did not do much damage before being caught. I do not think they had yet hacked the root account, so the damage was minimum. For those interested, I saved a copy of all of the installat

Re: Procedural question on iasa-bcp-02 Last Call (was: Re: Consensus? Separate bank account)

Hi, I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed. But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a problem as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the 02-bis you refer to) is different in any substantive manner, i.e. other then editorial, it will need to go through a seco

Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5

Gentlemen, I see several points discussed here which are/are not of the same order and seem confusing the issue. 1. the discussion creeps from Harald's RFC 3066 to Multilingual Internet. It seems strange to discuss byte oriented details without having first a Multilingual framework telling what