On Wednesday, July 12, 2006 06:09:42 PM -0400 Michael Richardson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
$177/person for FB.
So, if I put $20 of looneys in my pocket each day
... your pocket would be pretty heavy. Since water, soda, and cookies are
all
On Monday, July 17, 2006 10:11:07 AM -0400 Jeffrey Altman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me Paris and Montreal were the
two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
ability to provide network access in the
On Saturday, July 15, 2006 05:24:45 AM -0400 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks. gee whiz, that was a bunch of work for me. You had a tool? arg...
It's best to always ask Henrik and/or Bill if they have a tool.
Often they do, and if not, it may take less time to produce it than
On Monday, July 17, 2006 06:46:11 AM -0700 Andy Bierman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks. This was wonderful, and
about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
I
On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:03:34 AM +0100 Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Stephen Campbell wrote:
Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los
Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's Surfliner to San Diego.
These trains
Andy Bierman wrote:
Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
lots of flights from LA.
For IETF67, I'm leaving home around 6AM, and arrive at LAX some 19
hours later (and fly from LAX to San Diego). After this
Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words
Further recourse is available... at the beginning of
section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026 to mean that an appeal to the
ISOC Board can only follow rejection of an appeal by both
the IESG and IAB. Therefore, in my opinion, it is required
for the IESG to
Pete,
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/10/06 at 8:34 AM -0400, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
we seek comments on the Statement of Work located at:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/
- The SOW has nothing about performance expectations (i.e., what is
noted in section 4 of
It's fun to chat but there are 2000+ people here so maybe the topic is
exhausted?
At least please change the Subject when you change the subject.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:14:00 PM +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the minutes are
properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes.
Yes, but you have to be careful. Many organizations follow a practice in
which the members approve the minutes of
Sorry, I should have responded to the first notes on-list...
Just a reminder of what our process rules (RFC 2418) say:
All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These
minutes should include the
On 7/18/06 at 11:13 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words Further
recourse is available... at the beginning of section 6.5.3 of RFC
2026 to mean that an appeal to the ISOC Board can only follow
rejection of an appeal by both the IESG and
On Monday, July 17, 2006 10:11:07 AM -0400 Jeffrey Altman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me Paris and Montreal were the
two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
ability to provide network access
-Original Message-
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:31 AM
To: Dave Cridland
Cc: IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
On 7/17/06 11:26 AM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Melinda's intention was to
As a formal Standards Process - what is the records retention process - and
what are the defined records that make up the Evidence Package from any given
initiative?
This is a serious question for any and all efforts within the IETF. The other
issue is the authentication and guarantee that
Jabber Logs are part of NOTEWELL and if they are not maintaned then NOTEWELL is
a bigger problem than it already is. Sorry... if NOTEWELL is put in place to
capture participation - then ***all*** participation must be captured and
available to anyone reviewing any initiative...
Todd Glassey,
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:13 AM
To: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words
Further
H... The SOW MUST define all the elements of the Editor's responsibility
and all the specific tasks they perform as well as the SLA's for those Tasks.
It also MUST address the SOD (Separation of Duties) within the Editor's work
since they are altering the IP submitted.
Without that ther is
Elliot -
-Original Message-
From: Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:59 AM
To: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs
As someone who has both done a lot of jabber scribing and is also a WG
chair and has also remotely
David Harrington wrote:
Hi,
I would not like to see raw jabber logs included as part of the
minutes. The signal-to-noise ratio is way too low in many meetings.
Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job representing the
body language and the nuances of speech that may be important
Hi,
on 2006-07-18 17:24 IETF Administrative Director said the following:
The IAOC intends to issue an RFP for the RFC Editor function no later than 31
July 2006. To that end we seek your review and comments to the draft RFP.
I just thought of and checked up one particular issue in the SOW in
Todd Glassey wrote:
H... The SOW MUST define all the elements of the Editor's responsibility
and all the specific tasks they perform as well as the SLA's for those Tasks.
It also MUST address the SOD (Separation of Duties) within the Editor's work
since they are altering the IP
[ Disclaimer, I grew up in San Diego and now live in the LA area, so I have
biases in both directions. :) ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(BTW, how much would a taxi from LAX to San Diego cost? And would
you expect taxis willing to do it?)
It's 120+ miles from LAX to the Sheraton San Diego, so a
At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp
is continued?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but there is no RFC (or even
Internet Draft) describing rsync. Of course, running an rsync server
is trivial and
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The network access in the Delta was a problem. But the
Montreal Venue was excellent. Well worth the minor walk. The
city was marvelous. I'd easily vote to go back again. This
potential pattern of one meeting in Canada one in the US and
Hi Paul,
on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following:
At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp
is continued?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but there is no RFC (or even
Internet Draft) describing
At 11:53 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi Paul,
on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following:
At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp
is continued?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but
At 06:31 AM 19/07/2006, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp
is continued?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but there is no RFC (or even Internet
Draft) describing rsync. Of course,
At 12:14 AM +0200 7/19/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
\ Should we
barter away good current functionality because there's not an RFC for
rsync?
Nope. I would hope that the RFC Editor would have an rsync server
available. But that's different than mandating one when we can't
really say what
One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX - SAN as his last leg.
On 7/18/06, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Disclaimer, I grew up in San Diego and now live in the LA area, so I have
Hi Paul,
on 2006-07-19 00:28 Paul Hoffman said the following:
At 12:14 AM +0200 7/19/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
\ Should we
barter away good current functionality because there's not an RFC for
rsync?
Nope. I would hope that the RFC Editor would have an rsync server
available. But that's
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 18:28, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Saying rsync version 2.6 or later works for me, as long as we
understand the can't eat our own dogfood aspect of this requirement.
But isn't that equally true of having a web site?
Scott K
___
Ietf
*
* And I'd be reasonably happy if we specified 'any version of rsync greater
* than X.Y.Z', or some such. The current debian stable version (2.6.4-6)
* would work for me.
*
* Saying rsync version 2.6 or later works for me, as long as we
* understand the can't eat our own
Hi Bob,
*
* And I'd be reasonably happy if we specified 'any version of rsync
greater
* than X.Y.Z', or some such. The current debian stable version (2.6.4-6)
* would work for me.
*
* Saying rsync version 2.6 or later works for me, as long as we
* understand the
A contractual requirement at this level of detail seems totally
crazy.
I'm afraid I agree. I see this in our other kinds of process
specifications too -- we write rules for which you need to exercise
sensible judgement, and then fret about what happens when someone uses
bad judgement and try to
Hi Bill,
on 2006-07-19 02:51 Bill Fenner said the following:
A contractual requirement at this level of detail seems totally
crazy.
I'm afraid I agree. I see this in our other kinds of process
specifications too -- we write rules for which you need to exercise
sensible judgement, and then
I would offer the following:
Rather than look at extremes (e.g., Fred's What about Kabul?), let's
look at other second tier options, like Bangkok, Prague, Cairo (well,
maybe off the radar for the next few months), or Mexico City, to pick
well-connected, well-airported, rather inexpensive, cities
If you specify it then the spec will need a formal SLA too.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL
PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED];
And in this Standards IP portfolio should be all the communications used to
vet it including the mailing list, meeting notes, RFC and ID's, and any
other documents including Jabber Sessions. These all make up the evidence of
the IETF's vetting and must be retained to prove the integrity of the
Hi Paul,
on 2006-07-19 00:02 Paul Hoffman said the following:
...
on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following:
...
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but there is no RFC (or even
Internet Draft) describing rsync. Of course, running an rsync server
is trivial and certainly useful
Eric,
All I can say is that you're not looking very hard - I just spent all of5 mniutes searching for tickets and found a nonstop between Boston and San Diego for $418 on Alaska (this flight is also an American codeshare), and single-connection flights from Manchester NHstarting at $315 on
Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require
rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not
specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.? I'd certainly be
very unhappy completely abandoning the rsync capability.
I think that RFCs should be
Hi Bill
on 2006-07-19 04:26 Bill Fenner said the following:
Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require
rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not
specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.? I'd certainly be
very unhappy completely
43 matches
Mail list logo
