ext Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
Ha Ha. You (and others) have made the point quite well that the
majority of IETFers are probably hardy enough to suffer through the
week without actually dying. So what? The real question is why we
must suffer at all (I'm actually rather surprised that Phoenix has
not
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, 02 January, 2005 08:19 -0500 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
brian asks
Perhaps we do indeed need to explicitly limit the
IAOC Chair to chairing the IAOC. But we almost do - the
following paragraph says:
The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority
--On lørdag, januar 01, 2005 18:20:02 -0800 Glen Zorn (gwz)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ha Ha. You (and others) have made the point quite well that the
majority of IETFers are probably hardy enough to suffer through the
week without actually dying. So what? The real question is why we
must
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 11:58 +1100 Dassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Behalf Of Theodore Ts'o
| Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:20 AM
| To: Glen Zorn (gwz)
| Cc: 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'; 'IETF Discussion'
Brian,
On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 12:24, ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Jonne,
Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) wrote:
Hi,
sorry to tune in late, but keeping up with all the mails that are going
around I needed a vacation at the place of my in-laws...
I think the issue of a yearly
Brian et al.,
would
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the
IOAC.
do the trick then? (Modified from the ISOC by-laws.) I really do believe
Jonne asks:
would
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the
IOAC.
do the trick then?
works for me
Scott reponds to Jonne:
Jonne asks:
would
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the
IOAC.
do the trick then?
works for me
personal
bert asks:
The current text in section 3, 1st para states
The IAOC consists of volunteers,
does that not say enough?
I'd say no - volunteers can get paid in some cases
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 18:41
To: Scott Bradner; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, 7 - Miscellaneous editorial
--On Sunday, 02 January, 2005 08:19
bert asks:
The current text in section 3, 1st para states
The IAOC consists of volunteers,
does that not say enough?
I'd say no - volunteers can get paid in some cases
Sure... sometimes they also get a bottle of wine with Xmas.
Should we add clear text about that too?
Scott Bradner wrote:
bert asks:
The current text in section 3, 1st para states
The IAOC consists of volunteers,
does that not say enough?
I'd say no - volunteers can get paid in some cases
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any
Bert,
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 16:46, ext Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Scott reponds to Jonne:
Jonne asks:
would
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 17:10, ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott Bradner wrote:
bert asks:
The current text in section 3, 1st para states
The IAOC consists of volunteers,
does that not say enough?
I'd say no - volunteers can get paid in some cases
x.x Compensation
Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bert,
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 16:46, ext Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Scott reponds to Jonne:
Jonne asks:
would
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
At 13:56 03/01/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
I hope these are mutually exclusive.
Yes, if this means that the three of them should be aggregated into the
final strategy.
(i) Since we have no Next-Best Current Practices
category, publish this as an Informational Document,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh - how is Paris going to be physically dangerous. Are there
terrorists planning on blowing up a tower, I really don't think a few
warm days count as physically dangerous to most of the crowd I see
at IETF meetings...
This morning on radio - announce a trial of a very
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 16:43 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 13:56 03/01/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
I hope these are mutually exclusive.
Yes, if this means that the three of them should be aggregated
into the final strategy.
No, I really meant pick one,
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(iii) One way to read this document, and 3066 itself for
that matter, is that they constitute a critique of IS
639 in terms of its adequacy for Internet use.
Not exactly. It reflects that ISO 639 alone does not support all of the
The *meaning* of any given language tag would be no more or less a
problem under the proposed revision than it was for RFC 3066 or RFC
1766. For instance, there is a concurrent thread that has been
discussing when country distinctions are appropriate or recommended
(ca or ca-ES?); this
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
I don't think it's that uncommon to refer to a specification A that
makes use of another specification B as an application of B.
Perhaps, but I think it's best to avoid misunderstanding in
Wijnen, == Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wijnen, The current text in section 3, 1st para states
Wijnen, The IAOC consists of volunteers,
Wijnen, does that not say enough?
I think it does. I haven't seen an argument for why more text is
needed in the
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 09:58 -0800 Peter Constable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(iii) One way to read this document, and 3066 itself for
that matter, is that they constitute a critique of IS
639 in terms of its adequacy for Internet
From: Peter Constable
I'd also like to observe that various members of TC 37 and the ISO
639-
RA/JAC have observed or participated in the development of this draft.
For
my part, it is not the draft I would have developed if I had
undertaken it,
but I see no problems with it from a TC 37 or
Hi Hidega,
I think you should not take so seriously this type of comments in the IETF
mail exploder. I could had a similar or even stronger reaction ;-)
I guess they come as a way to complain about the lack of transparency in the
way a venue is chosen, against the rules explained in the IETF web
Elwyn Davies wrote:
Oh, and BTW I can go there on an (air-conditioned) train in only 3 hours.
The USA should invest in a few high speed trains.. they are the world's
best way to travel.
There's a slightly bigger pond between the U.S. and France...
Eliot
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ignoring whether that very nearly happened in RFC 3066,
because some of us would have taken exception to inserting a
script mechanism then, let's assume that 3066 can be
characterized as a language-locale standard (with some funny
exceptions
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Behalf Of John C Klensin
| Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:19 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'IETF Discussion'
| Subject: RE: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
| Dassa,
|
| For better or worse, we've
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
So what I can say is that I'm very happy that Paris is hosting this meeting
and hope that some time Madrid has a similar opportunity,
Oh, ok, yes, IETF, but where will the _Games_ be hosted? :-)
Alex
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Which is what 3066 does. So the questions remain as to what
real problems we have in internetworking that 3066 does not
solve and, if there are such problems, whether they can be fixed
by a less radical and complex change to the 3066 framework.
There are real problems with the
HIDEGA TIKU Lea RD-TCH-ISS supposedly scribbled:
Dear Glen Zorn
It is startling to see your remarks about, Paris in August as:
a.deadly. On your mail of 31/12/2004
b.physical danger of meeting in Paris in August. On your
mail of
31/12/2004
c.the point is the
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ supposedly scribbled:
Hi Hidega,
I think you should not take so seriously this type of comments in
the
IETF mail exploder.
I think that that is excellent advice.
I could had a similar or even stronger reaction
;-)
I guess they come as a way to complain about
HIDEGA TIKU Lea RD-TCH-ISS wrote:
France Telecom, the host for the 63rd IETF August 2005 meeting, is
paying for the rental of the venue and provides the network.
Please, where is the venue planned, if this information can be shared?
Is it in the 75 or outside?
Please don't take apparently harsh
I don't know how airline pricing works in .au - but here in the .us it
seems that adding a short flight into a more regional airport can more
than double the cost of an airplane ticket.
Also note that a town of 100,000 will seldom have conference space that
can host a conference that attracts
I don't care too much, if they use IPv6 ! but is also difficult to make them
better than those that we had in Barcelona ;-)
Regards,
Jordi
De: Alexandru Petrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:12:24 +0100
Para: [EMAIL
Couple of questions:
-What kind of city with a population of 75,000 has hotel accommodations for
2000 people unless it's a tourist Mecca and likely expensive and overbooked?
-What kind of mass transit does your typical city of that size have? On that
note, what kind of car rental capacity is it
On 18:04 03/01/2005, John C Klensin said:
No, I really meant pick one, since doing any combination I of
the three that I have been able to think about would just
produce more confusion.
John,
please review your propositions. They are not fully satisfactory because
each address (correctly) only
On 20:37 03/01/2005, Peter Constable said:
I note with interest that ccTLDs make use of ISO 3166 in spite of its
potential for instability. In the case of ccTLDs, however, there is a
considerable infrastructure for dealing with this: the DN system and
strict procedures for deploying changes in
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 12:29 -0800 Peter Constable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ignoring whether that very nearly happened in RFC 3066,
because some of us would have taken exception to inserting a
script mechanism then, let's assume that
Glen rants:
Are you then claiming that there is _nowhere_ in France that a) is
capable of hosting a meeting with the IETF's requirements and b) the
weather is more pleasant? =20
how about Paris?
http://www.paris.org/Accueil/Climate/gifs/paris.climate.temp.html
seems like the news story
Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a
specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?
-- Christian Huitema
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I'm not going to respond to most of Jefsey's comments. However, wearing my W3C
hat for a moment
Jefsey wrote:
- RFC 3066bis wants to fix some of the W3C needs, in a way which would
make these patches Internet standards. This is not the appropriate way.
(There is a W3C document on its way,
Christian == Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Could you please pursue this rather technical
Christian discussion on a specialized list, rather than the main
Christian IETF list?
There is sort of this problem that most of this traffic is last call
comments on a
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 17:49 -0800 Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a
specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?
Christian,
It seems to me that we are in a bit of a procedural bind on
this. The spec has
John:
How nice. In 2004, I discovered that I had no operational
experience and then that I knew nothing about standardization
processes outside the IETF. It is now only three days into 2005
and already I've learned that I haven't been focused on IT
globalization. I anxiously await the
Don't forget also: It is FULL of French!
On serious note: go in the Alps. The ski stations are nearly empty (no
snow), they have huge capacity (some were Winter Olympic places), the
weather is quite good and the scenery is breath taking.
Cheers
Scott Bradner wrote:
Glen rants:
Franck Martin wrote:
On serious note: go in the Alps. The ski stations are nearly empty (no
snow), they have huge capacity (some were Winter Olympic places), the
weather is quite good and the scenery is breath taking.
Might I suggest that you find a suitable venue and a sponsor that can
provide
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) '
draft-hoffman-ikev1-algorithms-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Russ
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 3967
Title: Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may
Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level
Author(s): R. Bush, T. Narten
Status: Best Current
49 matches
Mail list logo
