Date: 2004-12-10 22:37
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Lilly scripsit:
It's not clear to me that the proposal will provide protection
against the whims of politicians. If the definition of CS as
a country code changes again under the proposed scheme,
how is one to
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:14:42 -0800
From: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi -
From: Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Date: 2004-12-11 00:52
From: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The ABNF is an expression of the grammar that
describes the set of all valid tags.
No, this is simply incorrect. You cannot expect that any implementation that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-12-09, at 17.02, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Suggest this be rewritten to:
The IAOC is accountable for the structure of the IASA and thus decides
which functions are to be outsourced. All outsourcing must be via
well-defined contracts or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-12-09, at 16.58, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Section 5.1
For bookkeeping purposes, funds managed by IASA should be accounted
for
in a separate set of accounts which can be rolled-up periodically to
the
equivalent of a balance sheet and a
Just FYI --
At 7:58 AM -0800 12/9/04, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Should the IAOC not be satisified with these financial statements, the
IAOC shall have the right to request that the ISOC conduct an audit.
ISOC's finances are already audited by an independent auditing firm
on a yearly basis.
Margaret
Date: 2004-12-11 11:53
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our disagreement amounts to a basic question of whether parsers should be
written based on the ABNF alone, or based on the ABNF plus other constraints
provided in the spec. Clearly,
Bruce == Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:14:42 -0800 From: Randy Presuhn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Ietf-languages
Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi -
Date: 2004-12-11 11:59
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
I guess I am of the less formal type of person.
We can send omcplaints/concerns ot IAOC.
We ssume IAOC will handle/act on it
If they do not, we can start the recall process on them
Maybe I am just too simple minded.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Is it just me or what
This debate between John and Pete seems to be at such an abstract meta
level to me, that I have difficulty to try and see what it means for the
IAS BCP doc that I thinkwe are trying to get consensus on.
As I said, it could be just me, but I seem unable to map it to
any
Bert,
I think Pete proposed the IAS BCP should not take effect,
regardless of what other provisions it contains, until ISOC
modifies their bylaws in a way dictated by the IETF and,
presumably, by provisions to be incorporated by the BCP. That
strikes me a fairly concrete. My response was,
I've been thinknig more about the issue of the appeal process. Here
are some of the questions I have considered and the answers I've
found. First, can I provide something I'd like better than the
current text? The obvious candidate is the text in
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00. This would be
On 12/12/04 at 10:44 AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
... I want to repeat that my one of my two main concerns is less
with your note than with the concern that we are focusing our risk
analysis and protection mechanisms in the wrong place.
So, this part of the concern basically comes down to a
On 12/12/04 at 9:06 PM +0100, Bert (Bert) Wijnen wrote:
This debate between John and Pete seems to be at such an abstract
meta level to me, that I have difficulty to try and see what it
means for the IAS BCP doc that I thinkwe are trying to get consensus
on.
As I said, it could be just me, but
whatever the merits of Pete's suggestion I think John makes a very
important point when he says that it would be better to refer to a RFC by
number rather than a BCP by number (and title) because the text can
change while keeping the same BCP number (wwhich can not happen for
RFCs) - this means
On Sun December 5 2004 13:36, McDonald Ira wrote:
Hi,
Relative to Bruce's suggestion that the 40 character restriction
in names applies only to MIBs:
(1) MIBs in both SMIv1 and SMIv2 have always supported the ASN.1
standard maximum of 63 characters for identifiers
(2) But, due to
On 12 dec 2004, at 22.40, Dave Crocker wrote:
This is probably not what either one of them is thinking about, but I
class their exchange as being concerned with the following question:
Is the IETF making itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISOC, or is
the IETF contracting with ISOC to do some
Date: 2004-12-12 15:31
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
Moreover, the point is that countries do change, and that use
of country codes (as
--On Sunday, 12 December, 2004 15:04 -0600 Pete Resnick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/04 at 10:44 AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
... I want to repeat that my one of my two main concerns is
less with your note than with the concern that we are
focusing our risk analysis and
Re:
ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs
to coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF,
and these will include mechanisms for both in-kind and direct
contributions to the work supported by IASA. Since ISOC will be the
sole entity through
Date: 2004-12-12 15:33
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
The point is that under RFC 3066,
the bilingual ISO language and country code
Date: 2004-12-12 15:34
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course countries change, and then the numeric country codes change
as well. The point is that the alpha codes change for political reasons
when there has been *no* change in the
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:36:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are the IETF and ISOC agreeing on a partnership in the administration
of the IETF?
The issue that I was raising was about parity of authority. Pete was raising
an example that demonstrates a lack of parity in the terms of the
I'm about to send a series of notes abmut draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02
some of these are left over from comments I made on teh earlier version
but have not been addressed in -02 others are new comments/suggestions
I'll put them in seperat messages to be easier to track
Scott
open from last version
question - what is the backup mechanism for the IAD? (if the IAD were
to get truck fade for example)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
open from last version
This does not seem to admit to the possibility that the ISOC board might
say 'wait a minute - you are asking for twice as much money as you got
last year - we need to work with you to figure out a funding level that
the ISOC can support' - i.e. it is not reasonable to
open from last version
this is far to proscriptive - I do not think that the authors of this
document or the general IETF community are accounts - lets establish the
requirement that funds be available when needed but not try to dictate
the best way for that to be done - let the accountants
Date: 2004-12-12 15:55
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have not responded to the point that accessibility of source ISO
standards is supposed to be a major factor, yet the draft itself clearly
indicates otherwise.
The source for the
open from last version
I think it must be made clear that all IAOC decision making involves
all IAOC members then in office - not just a subset that might show up
at a meeting or on a phone call
maybe add: All IAOC decision making includes all IAOC members then in office.
Scott
Pete -
This debate between John and Pete seems to be at such an abstract
meta level to me, that I have difficulty to try and see what it
means for the IAS BCP doc that I thinkwe are trying to get consensus
on.
As I said, it could be just me, but I seem unable to map it to any
issue(s)
open from last version
I think that the text on appeals is still not clear enough (based
on other messages to the list, other people agree)
I am very leary of any unlimited ability for IAD (or IAOC) decisions
to be appealed - anything like that would be a too easy DoS vector
I am most worried
suggest changing appropriate IASA account to appropriate IASA accounts
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
open from last version
this document assumes a budget cycle of ISOC which does not
match reality - I would suggest that this document needs to key of off
the ISOC budget cycle and say that the various IAOC IAD milestones
must be at least X days before the ISOC budget approval time
Date: 2004-12-12 17:34
From: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you claiming that
sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
is nonconformant per some specification in the draft
proposal?
open from last version
I'd change BCP publication to using its normal consensus processes
(BCP is no magic term and may not survive the newtrk process)
I did not see anyone speak up to support the use of the term BCP
yet the term (the meaning of which may change in the future) is still
used
how about adding text that says the ISOC can blow the bolts
with the same kind of notice?
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
open from last version
the document says:
August 1: The IAOC approves the budget proposal for IETF purposes,
after any appropriate revisions. As the ISOC President is part of
the IAOC, the IAOC should have a preliminary indication of how the
budget will fit with ISOC's own
Date: 2004-12-12 19:20
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
If by international agreement, 'yz' becomes the designation
for that country, then it is rather silly to stick one's
fingers in one's ears
Hi -
Could explain the connection Bruce sees between the limit on
the length on descriptors used in writing MIB modules and
the tags used for identifying character sets? I thought I
understood MIB compiler issuess fairly well, but I seem
to be missing something here, as I just can't see how the
On Sun December 12 2004 22:52, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
Could explain the connection Bruce sees between the limit on
the length on descriptors used in writing MIB modules and
the tags used for identifying character sets? I thought I
understood MIB compiler issuess fairly well, but I
Well,
A letter of complaint requires no response unless there is something
that formalizes the requirement of response.
And if there is no procedure indicating that the IAOC needs to pay
attention to a letter of complain, that decision, i.e the one to ignore
letters of complain, cannot be
Date: 2004-12-11 10:48
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
My comments are in response to the New Last Call made on
Date: 2004-12-12 13:00
From: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your claim that the RFC 3066 ABNF itself has a restriction in length is also
clearly false. I will quote that again since you seem somehow not to have
seen it:
I
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:06:09 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
This debate between John and Pete seems to be at such an abstract meta
level to me, that I have difficulty to try and see what it means for the
IAS BCP doc that I thinkwe are trying to get consensus on.
This is probably not
Bert, Rob,
please find below comments on reserves. Thanks again for all your efforts.
Section 2.2
7. The IASA shall
work with ISOC to (?)
establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating
expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning,
and ISOC shall work
maybe define the IETF - maybe point to RFC 3233
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Date: 2004-12-12 20:57
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
That is not at all the aim here wrt stability; rather, the aim is
that a
Hi -
From: Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf-822 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Charset name length(s)
On Sun December 12 2004 22:52, Randy Presuhn
49 matches
Mail list logo
