Re: draft-iesg-discuss-criteria

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > You are confusing the normal balloting process with the alternative one. s/confusing/comparing/ - assuming that "yes + no objection" end up as "yes", and "discuss + abstain" as "no". Skipping Brian's "R" to get 14 ballots. > there is no reason to assume that someone w

Re: draft-iesg-discuss-criteria (was: [...] DISCUSS: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)

At 11:12 PM -0400 10/19/06, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: >(presumably, an IESG member having only weak objections would enter an >"abstain", This is not what an abstain means in the IESG's procedures.The text from http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/voting-procedures.txt says: > - "Abstain" means "

Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Total of 115 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 20 00:03:01 EDT 2006 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 8.70% | 10 | 7.96% |53526 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7.83% |9 | 6.56% |44090 | [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: draft-iesg-discuss-criteria (was: [...] DISCUSS: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)

On Friday, October 20, 2006 04:01:13 AM +0200 Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For the draft in question that means that it's now at 12:2, and if one member changes his or her mind it could fail with a 11:3. You are confusing the normal balloting process with the alternative one.

draft-iesg-discuss-criteria (was: [...] DISCUSS: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)

Sam Hartman wrote: > I'm going to last call the draft again. The "discuss" was about -02, the new "last call" will be about -03, here's a tiny URL for a diff: The iesg-discuss-criteria-02 I-D could be updated, it expired two months ago, and there's apparently a bug

Re: Requirements for Open Positions

On Oct 19, 2006, at 2:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote: I believe that potential candidates who (i) clearly understand what is involved in the relevant role but (ii) who have plausible ideas about how the tasks could be rearranged so as to reduce the workload should be taken very seriously rather

Re: Requirements for Open Positions

Andrew, Let me suggest, and suggest to the Nomcom, that these "requirements" are the opinions of the incumbents of what it takes to do the jobs as they see them. That is important input, but I question whether it should be controlling for either applicants or Nomcom decisions. In particular, wh

RE: NAT TRAVERSAL IN SIP THROUGH IMS

3GPP owns the IMS specification, not the IETF. I know there was a recent contribution to 3gpp for using STUN (and TURN and ICE) for NAT traversal. In the IETF, STUN is a standard (RFC3489), TURN is being standardized in the BEHAVE working group and ICE (which is related to STUN and TURN) is being

Re: [David Kessens] DISCUSS: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683

> "Joel" == Joel M Halpern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joel> After re-read Brian's draft, RFC 3683, RFC 3934, and the Joel> relevant portions of RFC2418 I support the IESG/ADs ability Joel> to make longer than 30-day suspensions and to engage in Joel> alternate methods of maili

Re: [David Kessens] DISCUSS: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683

After re-read Brian's draft, RFC 3683, RFC 3934, and the relevant portions of RFC2418 I support the IESG/ADs ability to make longer than 30-day suspensions and to engage in alternate methods of mailing list control, as described in 2418. I agree that the IESG having only the option of 1 year sus

[David Kessens] DISCUSS: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683

Hi, folks. david filed the following discuss on Brian's draft to rescind 3683. David is concerned that the IETF consensus is not strong enough to approve this draft. We definitely could use your feedback on this issue. In order to address David's concern, I'm going to last call the draft aga

Re: with merit?

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:29:07 -0400, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK. I want to write a document that makes MTI a non-requirement for > HTTP1.1-based protocols, because I believe that is the consensus in the > HTTP community. How do I get that done? Are you trying to change gener

Re: with merit?

> "Robert" == Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Robert> OK. I want to write a document that makes MTI a Robert> non-requirement for HTTP1.1-based protocols, because I Robert> believe that is the consensus in the HTTP community. How Robert> do I get that done? You start

Re: with merit?

Sam Hartman wrote: "Robert" == Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Robert> On 10/17/06, Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Michael> Can an appeal be rejected with merit? >> Yes. I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way. Robert> I don't

NAT TRAVERSAL IN SIP THROUGH IMS

Dear All, I am a Masters Student at Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX.   I am doing a project on NAT traversal in SIP in the IMS network. I am discussing the problems for the RTP packets while NAT traversal. One of the solution to it is the STUN and TURN servers.   I would really appre

RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Ted Hardie wrote: > For the charter discussions, I want to know whether it will > be an aim of the working group to standardize: > > * a way of carrying this information > * the structure of this information (but not its content) > * a standard representation of the content, so that access to the v

Re: with merit?

> "Robert" == Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Robert> On 10/17/06, Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Michael> Can an appeal be rejected with merit? >> Yes. I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way. Robert> I don't feel that way. I did wait a

Re: legal issue of RFC3619

Note that RFC 3619 is a document published for the information of the Internet community, via the RFC Editor, and not as part of the IETF standards process; I don't believe that the IETF makes any requirement on patent disclosure on such documents. Well, any I-D that contains the required boil

Re: legal issue of RFC3619

Note that RFC 3619 is a document published for the information of the Internet community, via the RFC Editor, and not as part of the IETF standards process; I don't believe that the IETF makes any requirement on patent disclosure on such documents. That said, it is nice that Extreme has disclo