To Eric, Spencer, and all the other Gen-ART reviewers: Thank you.
My experience with Gen-ART reviews has been very positive, and I
appreciate your work and effort. I realize you weren't seeking public
praise, but your volunteer contribution to the good of the IETF should
be recognized.
On
Hi.
After reading both the "IONs and discuss..." thread and last
month's discussion about the ION Experiment and RFC 4693, I want
to repeat something that at least some of us discussed
extensively during the NEWTRK period (and maybe the POISSON
period before that). Part of this has been said in t
If you are attending IETF 71 and are not subscribed to the 71attendees
mailing list you will have missed this announcement.
Sign up for the list at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/71attendees
Ray
Original Message
Subject:[71attendees] Win Ice Hockey Tickets
Date:
On 2008-03-07 21:10, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
>> The other question is why should the IAB get any special consideration
>> here? Surely, the IESG and the ISOC BoT could ask for more
>> information too and should be privy to the same level of information
>> that
Spencer,
On Mar 7, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> (stuff deleted)
>
> So, for example, it probably IS worth finding out if the rest of
> the ADs who sponsor reviewing bodies
As an AD who sponsors a reviewing body (the Security Directorate), I
guess it is my
turn to step into the
IETFers,
Here's your Friday afternoon bit of humor - as you all who have been
around for a while were designing this set of Tubes known as the
Internet, did you imagine that someday it might be used for 242 Gbps
of traffic related to 500,000 people joining a web collaboration
session for.
On 3/7/2008 11:18 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I
>> think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
>> documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I
Hi,
This might interesting for the l1/l2/l3 vpn and vrrp people.
You may have received the below email some days ago. The feedback to this email
was very positive, i.e., there has been feedback from interested researchers in
the US, Canada, Asia, and Europe.
If you are interested you can
-
On 3/7/2008 10:56 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Lakshminath:
>
>>> So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART Reviews. Other
>>> General ADs may have done things slightly different.
>>> When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in
>>> one of two categories.
>>> (1) The
10 years ago I would have thought audiences of this scale or larger
would be supported with multicast...
joelja
Dan York wrote:
> IETFers,
>
> Here's your Friday afternoon bit of humor - as you all who have been
> around for a while were designing this set of Tubes known as the
> Internet, di
Andrew Newton wrote:
> To Eric, Spencer, and all the other Gen-ART reviewers: Thank you.
>
> My experience with Gen-ART reviews has been very positive, and I
> appreciate your work and effort. I realize you weren't seeking public
> praise, but your volunteer contribution to the good of the IE
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 10 years ago I would have thought audiences of this scale or larger
> would be supported with multicast...
And indeed they could be. Most consumer facing ISP's, however, say
that they would rather not
deploy multicast (to save deployment money
And my thanks, specifically to Pasi, Miguel(twice), Vijay and Joel, who
as GenART reviewers, provided thorough reviews of documents I recently
shepherded or co-authored, and followed up diligently after revised
documents have been published and sent a "ready for publication" or
"addresses all c
--On Saturday, 08 March, 2008 00:12 -0800 Lakshminath Dondeti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The ideal way to deal with them is to always respond, and to
>> get an "I am satisfied with your response" to close the
>> thread.
>
> "Ideal" being the keyword though. Not everyone, for any
> number of
John C Klensin skrev:
>
> Some of this points out, once again, that BCPs are probably the
> wrong mechanism for reaching consensus on and publishing process
> documents, regardless of what we do with IONs.
>
> Should we keep IONs and, if so, should we keep them in their
> present form or so some tu
--On Saturday, 08 March, 2008 18:13 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (quibble - I call the BCPs that describe the principles for
> the process "process" documents, so I'd say that BCPs are
> probably the wrong mechanism for reaching consensus on and
> publishing *proced
On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Fully agree. In fact, given that the IAB expectations have been on
> the web for >4 years, it's surprising this debate hasn't happened
> before.
One might argue that it has, and it's specifically what prompted
clarify - yet still ambiguous
On Mar 7, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> Agreed - and one of the process failures here is that a nomcom that
> includes the previous chair and a liaison from the IAB designed a
> questionnaire in ignorance of the stated requirements; if the IAB
> expec
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 11:36:28AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I have to wonder, though, if any ISP will have the guts to block Oprah.
Heh. and if they tried, I'm just imagining what would happen when she
tells all of her faithful audience to call up their congresscritters
to support Net Neu
On 8 mar 2008, at 11.36, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I have to wonder, though, if any ISP will have the guts to block
> Oprah.
Why would they? Each one of the 750k "friends" of Oprah is paying for
their IP packets, and the server hosting people also pay for their IP
packets.
What is then wr
Patrik Fältström wrote:
[..]
P.S. And if multicast is in use, or unicast or some othercast, that is
from my point of view part of the "innovation" the ISPs have to do
(and will do) to ensure that the production cost is as low as possible
so that their margin is maximized.
I actually see a
On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Patrik Fältström wrote:
> [..]
>> P.S. And if multicast is in use, or unicast or some othercast,
>> that is from my point of view part of the "innovation" the ISPs
>> have to do (and will do) to ensure that the production cost is as
>> lo
On 8 mar 2008, at 17.51, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> [..]
>>> P.S. And if multicast is in use, or unicast or some othercast,
>>> that is from my point of view part of the "innovation" the ISPs
>>> have to do (and
Patrik Fältström wrote:
[..]
I am afraid that this is the sort of reasoning that has lead to P2P
having such widespread use.
I fully agree, (unicast) P2P is a godsend for Transit operators.
The fun with "p2p" is though, that HTTP is also peer to peer and actually
anything unicast is p2p from
Dear Philip,
You referred to draft-hallambaker-xptr-00.txt and wrote:
The list of comments does not include my core objection made in the
'Domain Centric Administration' and XPTR drafts, that it is in fact
possible to create 'midpoint' wildcards of the form
'_prefix.*.example.com' by the
A minute ago I wrote:
I think that the DNSEXT working group is a better place to discuss
the proposal and I've CC-ed them on this note.
I used the wrong address in the CC line. Be aware of that if you want
to continue the discussion on DNSEXT: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the
proper address of t
yes. those that built the integrated services model felt that it was
appropriate for internet telephony to have a way to test the capacity
available for a real time data stream, and if capacity wasn't
available, to say "no". Those who have worked in ieprep have pointed
out that absent such
2008/3/8 Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Patrik Fältström wrote:
> [..]
> >> I am afraid that this is the sort of reasoning that has lead to P2P
> >> having such widespread use.
>
> I fully agree, (unicast) P2P is a godsend for Transit operators.
>
> The fun with "p2p" is though, that HTT
The problem with multicast in this application is that it only works if all the
clients are accepting the same data stream and viewing it live.
That's not how people tend to view Web video, there might be 50% of the crowd
watching it as Oprah speaks but the rest are likely to be time shifted fro
John C Klensin wrote:
> Several of us have observed that the IETF is not very good at
> writing precise procedural rules. Some of us would even claim
> that history shows that we are fairly poor.
You could say roughly the same about the IETF not being as good
as it should at producing valid AB
Andrew Newton wrote:
> To Eric, Spencer, and all the other Gen-ART reviewers: Thank you.
+1
And thanks for offering a public list allowing to see what is going
on, for a boilerplate stating "treat it just like any other review",
and for picking the nice name "review team" instead of "director
31 matches
Mail list logo
