Please obviously read:
In my case, one of thre reasons of this thread, instead of In my
case, one of thre reasons of this threat.
Sorry.
jfc
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi,
the Hilton reservation system doesn't offer the IETF rate when
checking out on March 25 (or later) and instead charges $189 for all
days. Can someone ask them to fix that?
(The Hilton site shows 65TH IETF MEETING GROUP DATES:
03/16/06-03/25/06, so I assume the rate should be
Jeroen,
A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
(which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must
be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for diffserv-interest
was must be
Eliot Lear wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming
bandwidth on the DKIM list. With the aggressive schedule, the
immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form
found acceptable.
Without going into all the reasons
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
(which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must
be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
(which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must
be relevant to a chartered work item and the
Hi,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 14:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I would suggest that instead of sending such issues to a very large
list addressed to somebody, people should send them where they
may reach the right people: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and if that doesn't solve it, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks. I
I would suggest that instead of sending such issues to a very large
list addressed to somebody, people should send them where they
may reach the right people: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and if that doesn't solve it, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian
Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
the Hilton reservation system
Just for the participants who are enjoying the current discussion on this
list (for some value of enjoying) -
One of the things that I find most helpful is when people who could be
replying posting-by-posting within a thread stop, take a deep breath, and
ask themselves, rather than making my
I thinkSams proposed experiment is a very good idea. I do have some thoughts, butmy support doesn't hinge on theirincorporation and I'm in favor of the draft either way.
In my opinionthese should be experiments of process rather than penalty. I feel like since the severity of a ban legnth is
A pointer to "Sam's proposed experiment" is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt,
announced on Tuesday of this week.
Thanks,
Spencer
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
the Hilton reservation system doesn't offer the IETF rate when checking
out on March 25 (or later) and instead charges $189 for all days. Can
someone ask them to fix that?
While waiting for Hilton to fix the problem, an obvious work-around is to make 2
reservations, one for the period that
Lars,
Secretariat contact points are actually listed at
http://www.ietf.org/secretariat.html which is linked
right off the IETF home page.
You can find the IAD's address on the IASA page linked
from the bottom of the home page, but I agree it's
not obvious and I will suggest it be improved.
On Jan 26, 2006, at 16:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
While waiting for Hilton to fix the problem, an obvious work-around
is to make 2 reservations, one for the period that gets the lower
rate and the second for the additional night(s).
FWIW, calling the hotel directly has also worked.
Lars
--
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lars,
Secretariat contact points are actually listed at
http://www.ietf.org/secretariat.html which is linked
right off the IETF home page.
You can find the IAD's address on the IASA page linked
from the bottom of the home page, but I agree it's
not
Andy Bierman writes:
I think you missed my point.
I should have said enforce or abide by draconian rules.
Automating the process is even worse.
Then stupid scripts disrupt WG activity on a regular basis.
Inappropriate mailing list use should be dealt with by the
WG Chair(s) in a more
Randy Presuhn writes:
A more accurate restatement is that some good people have
already left because participation in the IETF was sufficiently
unpleasant for them, and that other productive people are on the
verge of leaving for the same reason.
Well, if they can't stand the heat in the
And BTW it isn't a rule, it's strongly worded guideline.
Brian
Mark Townsley wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.
This date was chosen, understanding that it bends the rules a bit, to
increase the greater goal of global participation by coinciding with the
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel,
an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive*
messages in a day. Our problem with disruptive messages can't be solved
by counting bytes.
Set a rolling monthly quota, then.
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Andy Bierman writes:
I think you missed my point.
I should have said enforce or abide by draconian rules.
Automating the process is even worse.
Then stupid scripts disrupt WG activity on a regular basis.
Inappropriate mailing list use should be dealt with by the
So, if we don't actually carry out the ban, how do we see whether the
ban is successful in meeting the experimental goal of improving
productivity?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Jan 26, 2006, at 9:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also I figure anyone banned by an experimental process is going
to make a lot of noise in the appeals process and we might start to
annoy our counterparts who have to hear them?
Isn't the (seemingly) requisite appeal following any action
The IESG wrote:
draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
Mostly editorial nits:
| presented and stored values are first prepared for comparison
| and so that a character-by-character comparison yields the
| correct result.
s/and// (?)
| The following six-step process SHALL be
Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long
stream of consistently productive messages.
We've certainly been made aware of that.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
From: Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nobody constantly sends a long stream of consistently productive
messages.
The irony in you, of all people, making this statement is a little stunning -
to the point that one really does start to wonder exactly what could be
behind your
[note: I find this type of summary to be a useful tool for
highlighting certain aspects of list traffic. With Brian Carpenter's
blessing, I plan on making this a regular feature for the ietf list.]
Total of 312 messages in the last 7 days ending midnight January 25.
Messages | Bytes
At 09:31 AM 1/26/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The IESG wrote:
draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
Mostly editorial nits:
I will work with the RFC-Editor to address the editorial
issues during AUTH48. As far as any non-Editorial issue,
I suggest you bring it up with the
Anthony,
...
--
-- Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long
-- stream of consistently productive messages.
--
--
This is simply not true. All one needs to do is publish a
crucial document relevant to the working groups charter,
and important to understanding the
Hi Harald,
In my opinion the 30 days rule is a good one, it may be possible to make it
a bit flexible, just indicating 3-4 weeks before a meeting instead of 30
days. My comment, based on very recent experience, is that the rest of the
Interim meeting planning procedure must be described more
Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
As far as any non-Editorial issue, I suggest you bring it
up with the responsible AD as any non-Editorial change at
this stage would normally require his approval to make.
Actually I was scanning through several dozens of articles
and confused protocol action with a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
(which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must
be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for
Jordi,
Let me make a very general observation, based on my experience
with the IETF.
Where administrative procedures are concerned, the IETF
functions well when the IESG is given general guidance by the
community but then applies good judgment and discretion to the
situations that arise. If the
Noel Chiappa writes:
In that case, there's no harm in the rest of us deciding we don't need the
dubious assistance of few of the most troublesome, and least productive, is
there?
Actually there is, because there's very little correlation between
being troublesome on a mailing list and being a
Thomas Narten writes:
[note: I find this type of summary to be a useful tool for
highlighting certain aspects of list traffic. With Brian Carpenter's
blessing, I plan on making this a regular feature for the ietf list.]
Total of 312 messages in the last 7 days ending midnight January 25.
Thomas,
this kind of filtering is interesting. From previous experience on
DoT (denial of thinking) work,
- you should differentiate the genuine text and the replied text.
This is a technique to keep a maximum text. To make the reading
longer. You will note that people cutting off the old
Hallo!
I am sorry if I am not supposed to send this message in this list.
I have problems in the choose of a real time scheduling algorithm for packets
in a wireless LAN (802.11b).
My project is the transmission of MPEG4 over WLAN and I'm trying to use a PEP
(Performance Enhancing Proxy) to do
I agree. One question...
As best I can see, the proposed experiment is silent on whether suspension
from one list has any effect on suspension from other lists, so I'm assuming
this aspect of RFC 3683 still applies?
(Text is something like maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their
As I read the description of the experiment, when the IESG decides on the
appropriate response to a specific case, they can decide whether that
response is a single-list response or a multi-list response.
Yours,
Joel
At 07:03 PM 1/26/2006, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I agree. One question...
As
I guess to me I feel like all experiments will lead to banned and the effectiveness of the solution is going to be how smoothly it gets there and how much it disrupts the normal course of things. I could be misunderstanding the whole thing but I feel like productivity will be affected most by the
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:16:59PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel,
an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive*
messages in a day. Our problem with disruptive
Theodore Ts'o writes:
As a gentle suggestion from one of the Sargeant-At-Arms. If
you were to keep track of how many messages you have been posting
compared to others, I think you would find that you are one of the
more prolific posters on this thread.
And if you were to look at the total
On 25 January 2006 the IMAPEXT working group chairs request sent a request
to their area advisor to ask the IESG to evaluate
draft-ietf-imapext-condstore-08.txt as a replacement for
draft-ietf-imapext-condstore-05.txt. The IESG approved
draft-ietf-imapext-condstore-05.txt for publication as a
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Message Access Protocol
Extension WG to consider the following document:
- 'IMAP Extension for Conditional STORE operation '
draft-ietf-imapext-condstore-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Group Security Policy Token v1 '
draft-ietf-msec-policy-token-sec-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multicast Security Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam Hartman.
A URL of this
There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 65th
IETF Meeting in Dallas, TX, USA:
February 27th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00)
Internet-Draft Submissions
All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday,
February 27th at 9:00 AM ET. As always,
45 matches
Mail list logo
