Title: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
There is a certain irony in the fact that the starting point here was aledged overuse of mailing list bandwidth.
-Original Message-
From: JFC Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 01:32 PM Pacific Standard
Pete == Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pete 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
Title: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
What may be more interesting Phillip is the Theofel
v Farey Jones ruling out of the 9th Circuit since it sets real pain for 'taking
an electronic service away from someone who is dependant on it'... Todd
Glassey
- Original Message -
Pasi.Eronen wrote:
...
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 kind of trip,
driving would be dangerous not just to myself, but everyone else on
the road as well...
There are better hub options than LAX...
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org;
iesg@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
I use ftp all the time to access the
The problem with the Oversight and appeal process is that it is described at
what in audit-speak would be described as a 200,000 foot narrative and the
actual controls and response processes are undefined. The timeframe and
oversight for any failings of the staff implementing the appeal processes.
OK Sam -
What do you do after the ISOC refuses to hear an appeal? What oversight is
there? Arbitration? Court? This is a serious question since there is no
reason for the ISOC BOT to actually consent to hear any specific appeal and
by the writing of their own Articles of Incorporation or BOT
On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that the process itself was
unfair and has failed to produce a proper result, if there wasn't
first an appeal on actual substance that didn't result in the
appropriate outcome.
But, technically, I would
- Original Message -
From: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]
On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 11:02:23AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
OK Sam -
What do you do after the ISOC refuses to hear an appeal? What oversight is
there? Arbitration? Court? This is a serious question since there is no
reason for the ISOC BOT to actually consent to hear any specific appeal and
todd glassey wrote:
That requires a policy and approval by the ISOC - this is one of the onerous
failings of the ISOC as well that it let the IETF define its own
contractual processes and their recourse models.
The IETF is a community trust, and the ISOC was formed to maintain that
Ted - I have no problem on there being a defined and solid dispute
resolution process and a cap to it in the IETF - the problem is that the one
that is in place now has so many holes in it and so little oversight that
the abuse that most turn away from runs rampant in the IETF and the one that
is
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Dave,
Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single
airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single
airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolis and Detroit, US Airways in
Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in
I used to use ftp all the time to access the RFCs but then it stopped
working about two months ago and messages on this list, from others
as well as me, and to the relevant e-mail address have had no effect.
That's strange. It's always worked fine for me. I just tried it two
seconds ago and FTP
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 20 13:20:59 2006
* X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
*RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
* Date: 20 Jul 2006 20:09:21 -
* From: John Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: ietf@ietf.org
*
On Thursday, July 20, 2006 01:04:39 PM -0500 Pete Resnick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that the process itself was
unfair and has failed to produce a proper result, if there wasn't
first an appeal on
On Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:02:23 AM -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or
Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???
Heh. Network isn't an IETF working group; the phrase Network
At 17:12 20/07/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian's reading is also preferable because in cases where the
unfairness of procedures is sufficiently blatent, the ISOC BOT need
not get involved.
Finally, Brian's reading means that the ISOC BOT will have both the
IAB and the IESG's opinions on why the
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Subject Identification Method (SIM)
'
draft-ietf-pkix-sim-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons
This is the second call for volunteers to participate in the 2006/07
IETF Nominations Committee (NomCom), the committee that will select
this year's nominees for the IAB and the IESG. Details about the
Nominations Committee and its operation can be found in RFC 3777.
The NomCom is the IETF's way
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Sieve Email Filtering -- Subaddress Extension '
draft-ietf-sieve-rfc3598bis-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working
Group.
This is a revision of RFC 3598. The subaddress SIEVE
21 matches
Mail list logo
