John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should
be modified so that, in the event of the
--On Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fred Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>> Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should
>>> be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the
>>> IA
Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be
>> modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust
>> falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself
>> ceases to ex
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be
> modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust
> falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself
> ceases to exist).
The concept makes sen
The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind
the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention
to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely
manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is
falling between the cracks.
Russ
+1 from me.
The role of the Trust Chair used to be pretty lightweight: either it
still is, and Harald's advice is sound (get clerical help), or it
no longer is, and a more detailed explanation of the experienced change
would be helpful to the community being asked for comment.
Leslie.
--On Apr
Pete Resnick wrote:
>> (1) Partially restore the 822 text, stressing "private use", rather
>> than "experiental".
>
> I don't think we'll be able to do this; see (3) below.
...
>> (3) Encourage X-headers for strictly private use, i.e., they SHOULD
>> NOT be used in any context in which interc
Coming to consensus on this is going to be messy, as it was in DRUMS,
which is what landed us with no comment in the document. To wit:
On 4/4/08 at 5:47 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>There are two ways to interpret the "X-" and I think they yield
>different answers about what should be done.
Exactly .. I don't see the problem. I've not seen any evidence of abuse.
IMHO if the procedure is not broken why are we trying to fix it?
Why is the IETF so continuingly dragged about in these, frankly trivial,
process issues?
> I won't repeat what others have said about the presence or
> abs
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Reliable Multicast Transport WG
> (rmt) to consider the following document:
>
> - 'Multicast Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK) Building Blocks '
>as a Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next
10 matches
Mail list logo
