draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes [Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]]

I'd be interested in any comments on draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00.txt in this context. Brian Pete Resnick 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

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

On 07/19/2006 20:08 PM, Clint Chaplin allegedly wrote: Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend: they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees. The weekend before the IETF? Hey, that's an advantage! ___ Ietf mailing list

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Henrik Levkowetz wrote: So how would you specify the requirement to provide rsync functionality in the SOW? I would think you would say something like, The RFC Editor shall make available an archive of RFCs in ways most convenient to both active participants and casual observers and leave

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Elliot - Then you leave it up to the party providing the service and open the IETF to all kinds of trouble... By the way Elliot do you think your sponsor, Cisco and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that? Just curious But hey - Maybe - try something like this:

Appeals, post-appeal discussions, DoS attacks on the IETF, and the depth of turtles

Hi. I had hoped to stay out of this one, but the volume has risen to a level... It seems to me that some major and important principles are being lost in the noise, so let me suggest a different point of view. The following is, obviously, just my opinion. Appeals, in the IETF, are not a

Re: netwrk stuff

Dave - - Original Message - From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:06 PM Subject: Re: netwrk stuff Paul Hoffman wrote: At 12:06 AM -0700 7/21/06, Dave Crocker wrote: By way of

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

todd glassey wrote: Elliot - Then you leave it up to the party providing the service and open the IETF to all kinds of trouble... By the way Elliot do you think your sponsor, Cisco and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that? Just curious For an RFP, you

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

todd glassey wrote: Elliot - Then you leave it up to the party providing the service and open the IETF to all kinds of trouble... By the way Elliot do you think your sponsor, Cisco and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that? This may be where some of the

Re: Appeals, post-appeal discussions, DoS attacks on the IETF, and the depth of turtles

Dear John, I see at least five different topics discussed in one single thread. 1. there are two different debates. The debate confuses my case and the need to better manage the IETF conflict resolution system. I have tried to differentiate what belongs to what and to help taking advantage from

Re: Appeal's purposes (was appeals, post-appeal, etc.)

At 16:41 22/07/2006, John C Klensin wrote: We have appeals to the IESG about IESG actions precisely because the function of such an appeal is to say you may not have understood the issues correctly, please take another look, considering these issues in particular Dear John, you miss an

Re: RFC Editor Function SOW Review

John C Klensin wrote: If an effort is worthy of adoption by the Internet, surely it is reasonable to demand that it have enough support to be able to obtain its own means of ensuring that the writing is adequate. We may find that there is more market for some protocols --and, over time,