Hi.
I received a note asking whether I had intentionally not copied
my note to rfc-editor-...@ietf.org as the draft RFI announcement
requested. The answer, for several reasons, is yes, it was
intentional.
One of those reasons is perhaps worth bringing to the
community's attention: This list
Hi Iljitsch,
You replied:
This is to inform you that, effective January 12, 2009, the
requirements to travel visa-free into the United States will be
changed. Nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries will still be
eligible to travel without a visa, but will have to obtain an approved
Hi John,
As an individual who happens to find herself on the RFP subcommittee,
I'd like to follow up a few points, below.
I have added rfc-editor-...@ietf.org to the cc line (having seen your
follow up note) as it is my understanding that the intention was for
that list to be publicly
On Jan 7, 2009, at 11:57 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This document is hard to comment on because it raises, and
mixes, a number of separate issues. A large number of those
involve questions that the RFI responses might reasonably
address; I have omitted those from these comments unless they
are
--On Thursday, January 08, 2009 13:09 -0500 Ray Pelletier
rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
(13) The Production Center is committed to follow the
provisions of a Style Manual that does not exist today, is
unlikely to exist when the RFP goes out, and may become the
first task for the
Ed,
Thanks for this.
As I understand it, the proposal boils down to adding a disclaimer to
affected documents that reads:
This document contains material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions
published before November 10, 2008 and, to the Contributor’s knowledge,
the person(s) controlling
John:
(6) In several places in the document, especially in the SOW
for the RFC Series Editor and Independent Submission Editor,
various actors are required to work with various other
actors. That language, in context, implies that no one is in
charge (or everyone is) and is the sort of thing
FYI -- we're still looking for people to complete this survey:
If you have thoughts about how the IETF's work could or should be
brought to more visibility through such a publication, please feel free
to participate in this research study by following this link:
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:
Ed Juskevicius wrote:
Ed - you nor the rest of this list is going to like this retort but I
would ask that you read all of it prior to flushing the response.
The purpose of this message is twofold:
1) To summarize the issues that some members of our community
have experienced since the
+1 to fred's proposal, let the exceptions be just that and don't
bother most I-D authors,
Stephen.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
You asked me to make this comment publicly, so here it is.
In my opinion, we need a 5378-bis that keeps the good bits but
corrects
Todd, Thank You for your comments. I've read them. Carefully. Three times.
I'm not sure if we are on the same page.
For example, you wrote:
Which brings us back to the issue of that the Trust MAY not rewrite
licenses for any IP that the IETF processed under RFC2026 unless ALL
of the parties
Stephen and Fred,
One of the interesting issues with 5378 is that there has never
been consensus about what problem(s) it was trying to solve.
The WG reached consensus on the two documents without, IMO,
reaching consensus on the problem statement. Nothing in our
procedures prohibits that,
On 2009-01-09 13:59, Stephen Farrell wrote:
+1 to fred's proposal, let the exceptions be just that and don't bother
most I-D authors,
Stephen.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
You asked me to make this comment publicly, so here it is.
In my opinion, we need a
On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Naiming Shen wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the review.
Just to comment on the Security Considerations you referred to
below.
Most of those information probably is not sensitive, if a router
allows a traceroute packet
to go through; Also this draft references to
Total of 41 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 9 00:53:01 EST 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.88% |2 | 40.44% | 204592 | edj@gmail.com
12.20% |5 | 9.83% |49725 |
Dear all,
I don't know about other companies, but mine has pretty tight travel
restrictions right now. I do not yet know if I will make the San
Francisco IETF or Stockholm. I suspect attendance at both will be way
down, but it's a hunch. If others are in the same position, it will
lead to
17 matches
Mail list logo
