Ahahahahahahaha - its the worst contract solicitation I have ever seen...
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "IETF Administrative Director" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF Announcement list"
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject
Say Gary - there is usually also a retention requirement for the actual
logs - not the transcribed ones. This is MUCH more complex than it seems.
There is a requirement to be able to prove the integrity of any process and
that means demonstrable evidence of everything. I brought this up about two
Dean -
So then its the ISOC's formal process to officially refuse to comply with
Safe Harbor, the US DMCA and the EU's Security Requirements for electronic
processes? Cool - I am betting that means the US Government cannot
participate with them too, right?
By the way - what State's or Country's la
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Meetings in other regions
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > ...
> > Outreach is important, and welcoming ne
On 24-jul-2006, at 16:28, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for
example
for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled*
from the
venue.
Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.
As you know Jordi local spo
After four and a half years of solid use, one of the fasteners
on the strap of my Novell IETF bag (from IETF 52) has finally given out.
Since I am otherwise in love with this bag, I am trying to find a
replacement strap.
Does anyone happen to know who manufactured this bag
and/or where one mig
On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:24 AM Douglas Otis wrote:
The completion of documents, and the closing of WGs remains within
the competence of the IETF. Beyond describing the intended use
and the vetting initially achieved, there is little benefit
John C Klensin wrote:
> Exactly.
>
> Where Dave and I disagree, I think, is that I consider getting
> from "technically correct and coherent but not in English that
> is acceptable to non-native speakers who primary language also
> differs from that of the author/editor" to be a community
> r
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your comment. It makes plain we belong to two different
worlds. My concern is the interoperability of these two worlds. My
problem is your difficulty to realise that your world is not the only
one on earth. Let go through your mail to try to understand why.
At 11:17
Exactly.
Where Dave and I disagree, I think, is that I consider getting
from "technically correct and coherent but not in English that
is acceptable to non-native speakers who primary language also
differs from that of the author/editor" to be a community
responsibility, while Dave considers it
List of attendees? Surely that is actually independent of the minutes...
--> -Original Message-
--> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:14 AM
--> To: David Harrington
--> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs
-->
-->
Todd Glassey wrote:
> Joel... Wow - what can U say... This is an issue because of the gross
> incompetence of an entity who is set up to propagate problems so that it will
> have something to work on... I bet the management of the IETF finds that
> comment as offensive as I find their incompete
I spent the first many years of my professional life overseas working as
a Linguist writing and speaking other people's languages. Even though my
own proficiency was inadequate by their standards, I relied upon
talented native speakers to enhance my publications so that they became
well written in
Hi Joel,
I know that in most of the cases, the connectivity can also be arranged as
part of the "local" sponsorship package. That's why I've used "etc." :-)
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:28:41 -0700
> Para
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.
The draft RFP is in .doc and .pdf formats and can be found at
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/ .
Comments should be submitted by 25 July to ensure
On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 06:51 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> The question as to why that initiative's process was stalled would
> have to be answered to be fair. One would have to take into
> consideration whether the underlying technologies were the issue,
> those undertaking the effort abandoned it,
Joel... Wow - what can U say... This is an issue because of the gross
incompetence of an entity who is set up to propagate problems so that it will
have something to work on... I bet the management of the IETF finds that
comment as offensive as I find their incompetence in these matters.
The
-Original Message-
>From: Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 24, 2006 7:24 AM
>To: todd glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: IETF Discussion
>Subject: Re: netwrk stuff
>
>On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 06:51 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>
>> The question as to why that initiative's process was
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> That's part of the problem, sponsorship should be managed from a different
> perspective, and totally decoupled from the venue itself.
>
> IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for example
> for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said
At 04:05 06/07/23, JFC Morfin wrote:
>4.3. IANA registries. In the case of IANA registries there is no market
>alternative [we saw that in the alt-root case]. The control of a IANA registry
>can therefore be strategic. Until now the IANA had three main areas: numbers,
>names, protocol pa
John C Klensin wrote:
[DRP excl. last calls]
> in general, if an AD, or the IESG, as a whole, is asked to
> issue a Last Call and declines to do so, that decision
> should be subject to appeal. And, if the IESG wants to see
> that "in general" narrowed --as I think it should be-- then
> they sh
That's part of the problem, sponsorship should be managed from a different
perspective, and totally decoupled from the venue itself.
IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for example
for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled* from the
venue.
Local sp
--On Monday, 24 July, 2006 07:07 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> I commend draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00 as an attempt to
>> rethink this area. People who are interested in this topic
>> should probably study it.
>
> Yes, it's interesting. Wit
23 matches
Mail list logo
