Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, if I understand the license correctly, it seems incompatible
with free software licenses. The RedPhone license contains:
1. General Use License
Upon request, RedPhone Security will provide a worldwide,
nonexclusive, fully-paid,
There was no place for comments on the breakfast question.
I think an important criterion is not just whether the CONTRACTED HOTEL
provides breakfast, but whether, in addition, the OTHER HOTELS IN THE AREA
where IETF-ers are likely to stay, provide breakfast.
If we are in a city where MOST
Janet P Gunn wrote:
But if it is ONLY the contracted hotel that provides breakfast, and
the other hotels do not, then I think that the meeting should provide at
least SOME breakfast items.
Whether a break period should or should not include food might be a
reasonable question, given the
Good question.
But that isn't how the survey question was phrased.
The question wasn't should IETF provide breakfast (in general)?
The question was should IETF skip breakfast if the contract hotel
provides it?, which seems to presume that IETF WILL continue to provide
(continental) breakfast
I'm following up to Cullen's note, but I've read Sam's note, Joel's note,
and Ted's note. I tried to keep my own note short, but really admire Joel's
brevity...
(Disclaimer: I'm one of the EDU team members who worked on the WG Chairs/WG
Leadership tutorial. If I'm seriously off-base in my
I want to make three peripheral comments.
1. I congratulate the ADs for bringing this to the general list.
If we habitually resolve such difficulties openly, we strengthen
the IETF going forward.
2. I think we have a general problem of assuming that issues
decided in the meeting room and
--On Wednesday, 18 April, 2007 19:08 -0400 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geopriv dropped because I'm asking a general question.
AGENDA CHANGE
The IETF process allows for agenda changes during
meetings. At the outset of the meeting, the agenda was
...
Spencer,
I want to express slight disagreement on one of your points (the
others are clearly, at least to me, on-target)...
--On Thursday, 19 April, 2007 08:03 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
- We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an
extreme case of
--On Thursday, 19 April, 2007 07:25 -0400 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether a break period should or should not include food might
be a reasonable question, given the limited time to forage for
food elsewhere.
But what is the reason for presuming that the IETF has an
Hi, John,
Not-an-AD would be better than an-AD, but an-AD would be better than wasting
the WG's time.
I agree with your point, I agree with not making a hard-and-fast rule, and I
agree that the expectation is that an-AD chairing a WG meeting would recuse
self from subsequent IESG
Some comments from me regarding this issue:
First of all, as Ted mentioned, we have to note whether the chairs
themselves complain about the Prague session or whether they
are just responding to complaint voiced to them in private mails.
As I read the mails, it's the latter which begs the
It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.
The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a
presentation by Jon Peterson on
At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple sets of
requirements as documented multiple times ...
bologna
documented multiple times means in individual submissions
of which, zero facts were presented to substantiate
If DHCP were so
At 04:31 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
And there it is.
You're going to have to justify the accusation, John. Barbara S has
already said she thinks she'll be constrained to deploying a system such
as this - so it's certainly not a hidden agenda on her behalf. Other
than that, it
DHCP is a layer 3 technology that talks directly to layer 2.
This is entirely acceptable, useful and right for NETWORK configuration. DHCP
is an entirely sensible means of obtaining an IP address and _proposals_ for
domain name prefixes and DNS servers.
DHCP should not be used for any other
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
DHCP is a layer 3 technology that talks directly to layer 2.
DHCP is a technology that dynamically configures hosts.
If a host has a configuration knob that might reasonably and
properly be set by the systems administrator
In the example you gave the Hilton is EXACTLY the network that MUST give you
your location, and Verisign, if they tried, would give a valid, but very
wrong location.
That is the point of using DHCP for location, you need the closest possible
server to get the right location. You need a server
In reading the messages posted to the list relating to the GEOPRIV WG
meeting at IETF 68, it strikes me that we have a situation in which
a deadlock was allowed to persist for much too long.
Whether standard or alternative mechanisms of consensus determination
can resolve this situation seems
NOTE: I got the days of the week right, but the dates wrong. The
interim will be the 16th and 17th of May. That is still Wednesday and
Thursday. The times of the second day (Thursday) is subject to change,
due to popular demand.
IETF LEMONADE Interim Meeting
=
The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG
(ipfix) to consider the following document:
- 'Bidirectional Flow Export using IPFIX '
draft-ietf-ipfix-biflow-04.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
20 matches
Mail list logo
