Tom Petch wrote:
Perhaps, in a year or two, when the surrounding landscape
is more stable, there will be scope for a revision
I did consider to bet on 2822upd as the faster horse.
See a recent thread on the SMTP list about email-arch I18N,
EAI, 2822upd, and all the rest for the context of bet.
Agreeing with Brian's dislike of
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html, it was drafted,
as far as I know, before RFC 3777 was published. RFC 3777 defines the
process, with the consensus of the IETF community as a whole. I suggest
that the IAB at least review its
Joel,
Apologies for not responding sooner to your review, as it came right
ahead of the -00 and -nn cutoffs.
Please see some responses inline.
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Thanks you for your careful review and for your comments.
We have looked into your comments, and we try to provide answers inline
within your original email included below.
We will update the draft according to our answers below, please let us
know in case the proposed resolutions to your
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
I believe that it's appropriate for the confirming bodies to ask for
additional information if they have reason to doubt that due proces
has been followed or that some of the proposed appointees are suitable.
Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
followed to the
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
followed to the extent required by the body they represent, and to give
advanced notice when the choice of candidate is likely to be
unacceptable to their body?
Hmmm.
RFC 3777, Section 4. #7
I think you have the whole confirmation process backwards.
If you start from the premise that the absolute priority is to keep control in
the hands of the establishment you naturally arrive at a need for at least two
bodies arranged so that each acts as a guardianship council to the other.
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
followed to the extent required by the body they represent, and to
give
advanced notice when the choice of candidate is likely to be
unacceptable
Mike,
I have to disagree with your characterization of the proper role of
the IAB with regard to the NOMCOM process.
I have been on three NOMCOMs, including the one prior to this, so I
too have some experience in the process.
My feeling is that the IAB may have been trying to assert too
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: Specification
Hi Jari,
On Thu, March 13, 2008 8:49 pm, Jari Arkko wrote:
Avi,
For what it is worth, this ex-EAP co-chair also thinks that
the use of EAP keys for applications is a very bad idea.
Why?
For a number of reasons. Take this from someone who has actually tried
to do this in the distant
Mike,
Thanks for your note.
Are you saying that there is text within 3777 that says that confirming
bodies should not ask for verbatim feedback but could ask for verbatim
questionnaire responses?
Consider this: what if the next nomcom were to be asked to provide
verbatim feedback by one of
Hi Joel,
Many thanks for your review. Some notes inline:
I am a bit under the weather, and so if I am incoherent, please feel
free to say so. Thanks.
On 3/17/2008 1:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for
On 3/16/2008 7:36 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
My apologies, I was going to leave this alone, but this ...
chastisement .. is off-target.
At 09:50 PM 3/16/2008, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Mike, whatever your personal opinion, based on the public
information many people have concluded in good
As much fun as I've had in catching up with this thread, I'd like to
remind all of us that we, at the IETF, do not dictate the way systems
get built in the real world. There are SDOs that have gone ahead and
defined their own hierarchies out of the MSK and EMSK for various usages
at higher
I have been a bit under the weather and responding to some of the
emails. I hope to catch up in the next couple of days.
On 3/16/2008 1:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Lakshimnath, just a few notes and queries...
On 2008-03-16 16:10, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
* Nominee lists
Actually I think it's a little more technical than editorial. This
problem is due to the fact that HOKEY is extracting a key derived from
the EMSK and making that The Mother Of All Root Keys (MOARK), which
can be used to derive all keys for all purposes to solve all problems in
the world.
Fred Baker wrote:
are confidential to the nomcom. For example, every question including
a new do you have anything else you would like to add question
needs to have two slots, one confidential to the nomcom and one
confidential to the nomcom plus the confirming body.
How about
There is an expectation that the information provided to the
nominating committee is confidential. The confirming body
needs some
information to determine whether the candidate fits the stated
requirements.
There is a simple solution to that. The nomcom asks the candidates a
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer should contain rice.
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer should contain rice.
Thank you. Comment following your clarification.
Joel
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
The one thing that bothers me a little is the intended status of
this document. Given that the EMSK is entirely inside a system, and
that therefore the actual generation process is internal to that
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer should contain
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:44:49 -0700
Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J.
On Mar 17, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Try this one, quite non-hypothetical: a candidate for the IESG is
contemplating switching jobs. His or her current employer does not
yet
know this. It has a clear bearing on whether or not that person can
do
the job of AD, but
Narayanan, Vidya skrev:
All said and done, here is what it boils down to - any application of
EAP keying material to other services (using the term here to include
things ranging from handoffs to mobility to L7 applications) is only
feasible when those services are provided either by or
Brian E Carpenter skrev:
Hi Lakshimnath, just a few notes and queries...
On 2008-03-16 16:10, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
* Nominee lists should be made public. In fact, other selection
processes within the IETF make the candidate lists public and so it is
time we let go of this
On 3/17/2008 7:23 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Narayanan, Vidya skrev:
All said and done, here is what it boils down to - any application of
EAP keying material to other services (using the term here to include
things ranging from handoffs to mobility to L7 applications) is only
Christian Huitema wrote:
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of area director. The current area
director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been attempting to impose his
opinion that beer
On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:44:49 -0700
Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete
(ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under
it.
I accept the nomination of
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 02:08:15AM +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Try this one, quite non-hypothetical: a candidate for the IESG is
contemplating switching jobs. His or her current employer does not yet
know this. It has a clear bearing on whether or not that person can do
the job of AD,
Thanks Joel. Followup notes inline:
On 3/17/2008 6:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Thank you. Comment following your clarification.
Joel
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
The one thing that bothers me a little is the intended status of
this document. Given that the EMSK is entirely
-Original Message-
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:58 PM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call on Walled Garden Standard for the Internet
On 3/17/2008 7:23 PM, Harald Tveit
The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
(sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto '
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has received a request from the Mobility for IPv4 WG (mip4) to
consider the following document:
- 'Mobile IPv4 Traversal Across IPsec-based VPN Gateways '
draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Internet Message Access Protocol Internationalization '
draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-15.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Internet Message Access Protocol
Extension Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Lisa
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 '
draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-11.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Mobility for IPv4 Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.
A
38 matches
Mail list logo
