My intention was to say that the IAOC sets the rules as soon as it gets
around to it, and certainly before any expense is covered - even if the
rule is as simple as no payment, ever, it should be set.
So I also prefer Mike's wording to mine.
(Another thing - I have recommended to the transition
I still see no real disagreement in content on the question of
reimbursement, but the point has been made that the IAOC needs to set those
rules in advance of the question being raised, so I'll switch to proposing
that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns
at the
OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike.
So that is:
t
The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering
reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement
shall generally be for exceptional cases only.
/t
--On 7. januar 2005 13:43 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from
your list are curious:
1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes
*after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a
Dave Crocker wrote:
And, indeed, I haven't seen much support for the document under
discussion.
I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you
mean by much support. There have been at least as many individuals
writing mails in favour of the document as against it.
Harald suggets:
so I'll switch to proposing
that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns
at the end of section 4.0:
-
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as
OK, I have use this text (as 2 paragraphs) from Haralds email
below
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:41
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: V2 Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC
On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote:
OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike.
So that is:
t
The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering
reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement
shall
We have had a number of issues that circle around the financial model for
the IASA. Some of these have been fairly nitpick-level, others have been
more matters of principle, others are really hard to tell.
In order to get the discussion to a place where we can reach some
conclusions, it might
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The IASA model of finances, as presented in the BCP, is this one:
Money comes from a number of places, which can be grouped roughly as:
(snip)
Similarly, the money goes to just a few places
X - Money spent in support of the IETF
Y - Money left by the end of the year
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:33:54 GMT, Misha Wolf said:
I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you
mean by much support. There have been at least as many individuals
writing mails in favour of the document as against it. Furthermore,
it has been made clear that the
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:32 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
s much as we might like the handy default yes/default no
terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the
standards track have varying levels of support and interest
when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 16:31 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual
property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools
shall also
transition to the new entity. Other terms of removal
Specific suggestion for text changes from harald
Reserves
Section 2.2 bullet 7, current:
8. The IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover
normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with
prudent
Hi.
In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and
moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to)
debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions:
(1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar
standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly,
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support
for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support
be demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
d/
And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records.
When we
John,
I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the
IAOC, and not folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC
members. (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be
an ISOC member...).
That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposal.
I don't want to belabour it, because I don't want to
Apologies for the bad parse.
When I said non-ISOC member, I intended to say the members of IAOC who
are not representing ISOC, not not a member of ISOC.
Having the ISOC President have a formal role in representing the IETF when
discussing how to dissolve the relationship between ISOC and the
Hmm...
No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for
publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules
should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the
teleconference bill for xxx), but the IAOC can also establish rules for
From: Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records.
When we have
a mailing list like ietf-types or ietf-languages where there is a long term
community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there
be taken into account
M
My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to
do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that
were better done earlier.
I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian
slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but
On 1/10/2005 14:41, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
Hmm...
No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for
publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules
should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the
teleconference bill for
Tom == Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom I believe any individual submission should have a publicly
Tom identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed
Tom in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues,
Tom hopefully resolve them, before last call.
I
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
[...] The whole community consensus
thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word
standard. [...]
I would like to recall that new documents enter the standards-track
as Proposed Standards and there are
--On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M
My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to
do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that
were better done earlier.
I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 14:07 -0500 Leslie Daigle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the
IAOC, and not folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC
members. (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be
an ISOC member...).
That said, I'm not
Vernon Schryver wrote:
vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you
vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
vs as usual that it sounded like.
That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my:
mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes,
mw but
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:15:46 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the
usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual
submissions.
Actually, i was not intending to indicate such a relationship, nor do i believe
unsubscribe
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find
it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working
towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to
raise it even further. Why are we
In principle, the process for moving in stages from I-D to Full Standard
is a good one, but only for those who know and respect the different
categories. Increasingly, I get the impression that those not au fait
with the workings of the IETF see an I-D as a considered piece of work,
to be
From: Misha Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you
vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
vs as usual that it sounded like.
That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my:
mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever
At 19:06 10/01/2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for
adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be
demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
And the point I'm trying to make is that
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 21:29 + Misha Wolf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vernon Schryver wrote:
vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you
vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
vs as usual that it sounded like.
That appears to be a rather
Let me take this opportunity to say that Apple, too, strongly supports
3066bis.
Deborah Goldsmith
Internationalization, Unicode liaison
Apple Computer, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 10, 2005, at 3:33 AM, Misha Wolf wrote:
I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified,
publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certification Path Building '
draft-ietf-pkix-certpathbuild-05.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working
Group.
The IESG contact
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Full-mode Fax Profile for Internet Mail: FFPIM '
draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Internet Fax Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Scott Hollenbeck and Ted Hardie.
Technical
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extended Sequence Number Addendum to IPsec DOI for ISAKMP '
draft-ietf-ipsec-esn-addendum-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IP Security Protocol Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam
39 matches
Mail list logo
