Carl,
my impression as a bystander is that the IETF has decided that sole source
contracts (where only one contractor is permitted to bid) are, in general,
a Bad Idea.
The Secretariat contract had very special circumstances, which caused it to
be sole sourced, but I interpreted the words fro
> Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with
> the timeline)?
Yes, I did. Not having been party to the discussions, I'm
not quite sure what is going on. We did a sole source
re-assignment of the IETF secretariat. As I said in my
note, I'm curious about:
1. the opinion from the RFC-Edi
> The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be
> for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, .
and 1 april RFCs?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with
the timeline)?
Thanks,
Leslie.
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi Leslie -
It would be really helpful to understand what the RFC Editor
thinks of this proposed charter. Have you run it by them and
what was their reaction?
It would be equally helpful t
Hi Leslie -
It would be really helpful to understand what the RFC Editor
thinks of this proposed charter. Have you run it by them and
what was their reaction?
It would be equally helpful to understand where the IAB/IAOC
is going with this ... are there plans to rebid the contract
to another or
At 19:40 16/03/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
What is an acceptable way to raise a concern that this sort of
problem is present?
When someone thinks that there is an elephant in the room, we need
to let them at least raise their concern. In this case, the nature
of the purported elephant is highly
I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe
is going to be a common thread:
[Ran Atkinson wrote:]
Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the
publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly
should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled
f
At 10:06 AM 17/03/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for
reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the
STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB.
...
STRAW RFC Editor Charter
The RFC Editor executes editorial managemen
From: "Leslie Daigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for
reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the
STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB.
It is a modest extension of the RFC Editor paragraph as found
in RFC 2850 (the
Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for
reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the
STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB.
It is a modest extension of the RFC Editor paragraph as found
in RFC 2850 (the IAB Charter).
The purpose of this straw pro
Response-
No Joel - you are dead wrong IMHO. The IETF doesnt get to redefine the
Industry Term BCP to mean 'some document we publish'. BCP is an accepted
Industry Acronym for a document specific to how some practice is done at
some specific point in time and it is only valid for the period of that
The IAB and IAOC have put together the following proposed
plan for clarifying the RFC Editor function and running through
a contract review process this year.
The key pieces of this proposed process are:
. getting agreement on a basic RFC Editor charter
. completing TechSpec to d
All -
The IAOC will once again hold open office hours during IETF 65:
Tuesday, 21 March 2006
1500-1520 Office Hour (break) - Topaz Room
1720-1740 Office Hour (break) - Topaz Room
Wednesday, 22 March 2006
1610-1700 Office Hour (Break) - Topaz Room
Thursday, 23 March 2006
[IAOC] 1610-1700 Office
Folks,
What I did was
describe the actions of WG members, and the way in which they are
gaming the IETF process. The chair then (publicly) suspended my
posting privileges.
In the conversations since, I observe that no one has questioned the
accuracy of my remarks,
The purpose of this no
Since this has been a touchy process subject lately, I must correct an error
in the appeal: the AD (me) did not decide to ban anyone. I decided to
uphold a decision made by one of the atompub working group chairs. Since my
decision is being appealed, and it was not included in the appeal to the
I
Dear IESG,
I'm writing to appeal an AD decision to ban me from posting to the
Atompub mailing lists. The text of the original appeal is included
below.
Please keep in mind that this message comes from someone who has put a
lot of effort into the WG activities, edited the only successful
product o
What follows has been announced on the WG chairs mailing list, but (as best
I can tell) has not been announced on either the IETF Discussion List or
IETF Announce List, so if I'm sending wrong or premature information, I
apologize in advance.
According to
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web
I agree,
We should provide better guidance on encoding of the UPN.
This should map with the format of UPN when provided in a certificate.
The reference to the preferred name syntax is thus inherited from RFC
3280. This is how RFC 3280 restricts labels in the dNSName subject alt
name.
I will come
18 matches
Mail list logo
