Jari Arkko wrote:
> And as Brian noted, if this someone misuses their power for
> personal reasons or some other reason, we have an appeals
> process. I'm not sure there's fundamentally any other way
> to handle this.
Nor me. Forcing them to either vote "Yes" for a document they
don't really lik
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:57:58 +0200
Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, at the end of the day there is going to be someone
> who has to decide whether a particular proposal fits the purpose
> of the WG, the IETF or the RFC series. This someone can be the
> people in the WG, the spo
A couple of comments, with the understanding that Brian and are
in substantial agreement about all of this and complete
agreement about the things I've left out.
--On Friday, 09 February, 2007 17:44 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> That's apparently a side effect of the
--On Friday, 09 February, 2007 13:20 -0500 Leslie Daigle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, when the question (ION v. informational) came up
> within the IESG's discussion of the document, this
> is what I offered:
>
>> On the ION v. RFC question -- I think this is *really*
>> teetering on the
> "Blake" == Blake Ramsdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Blake> OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and
Blake> try to clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments
Blake> or criticism about what my role is or how I should proceed
Blake> with this.
Frank,
> What I don't like in your draft is the (apparent) personal veto
> right for the AD. Authors (hopefully) have an idea about their
> topic, but they don't need to be procedural experts. They don't
> need to know what an "area" is, if it has a catchall WG or not,
> and who the area directo
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Language Tag MIB '
as a Proposed Standard
The title seems to suggest that the document defines managed
objects for managing language tags, which is not the
Sam Hartman wrote:
The title of this document is very confusing and should be revised to
include the string textual convention.
Seeing this last call announcement I was very puzzled why anyone
thought it would be a good idea to hae a MIB for monitoring and
managing all the URIs on a managed syst
Hi Tom,
> There should be one document that is the starting point for those considering
> the RFC and IETF processes, one that gives an even-handed treatment of the
> available routes to varying outcomes,
Right. If you are thinking in terms of an educational
document, I'm not sure sure we have one
Personally I've been convinced that this document definitely should
not be an informational RFC.
It should either be an ion or a bcp at the community's choice based on
how much review they want when the IESG decides to change things.
It doesn't make sense to me for the IETF to publish informatio
Well, when the question (ION v. informational) came up
within the IESG's discussion of the document, this
is what I offered:
On the ION v. RFC question -- I think this is *really*
teetering on the edge! I've copied below the
relevant section of draft-iab-rfc-editor-03. On
the one hand, this d
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on Area
Director Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC
>
Frank,
On 2007-02-09 17:04, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jari Arkko wrote:
I would be happy to sponsor a ternary bit draft, but only on
April 1 :-)
What I don't like in your draft is the (apparent) personal veto
right for the AD. Authors (hopefully) have an idea about their
topic, but they don't
Jari Arkko wrote:
> I would be happy to sponsor a ternary bit draft, but only on
> April 1 :-)
"IETF replaces 'bits' by 'tits', [EMAIL PROTECTED]", it could be a case
where April 1st is no good excuse.
What I don't like in your draft is the (apparent) personal veto
right for the AD. Authors (ho
Christian,
Thanks for your quick re-spin of this draft. I have reviewed
this latest version, and it addresses all of the issues/questions I
had raised.
Thanks, again!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Vogt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
The title of this document is very confusing and should be revised to
include the string textual convention.
Seeing this last call announcement I was very puzzled why anyone
thought it would be a good idea to hae a MIB for monitoring and
managing all the URIs on a managed system. I was gratifie
> "Denis" == Denis Pinkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Denis> Sam,
>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ> Denis: I do not consider these to be new comments. You made
Russ> them during WG Last Call, and there was considerable
Russ> discussion on th
Total of 49 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Feb 9 00:53:02 EST 2007
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
12.24% |6 | 12.27% |33734 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10.20% |5 | 9.72% |26727 | [EMAIL PROTECTED
- I'm lost about why we would continue to publish Informational process
RFCs (ignoring any existing pipeline of process documents remaining to
be published as RFCs).
To me the argument for making this one an RFC is mainly that it
fits together with the two other drafts mentioned previously,
w
19 matches
Mail list logo
