The problem here is that a
consensus based approach is a lousy way to deal with large complicated
problems where the number of stakeholders is very large and only a
tiny minority of them are able to participate in the IETF process in
an effective manner.
This may well be true, but in many
Hi,
After having reviewed all the last call comments I like to make a
consensus call on this document.
I think there is rough consensus for publication of this document given
that it is updated to make the following clear:
- Make the applicability statement more clear on that any determination
--On Thursday, April 30, 2009 00:22 -0700 Bernard Aboba
bernard_ab...@hotmail.com wrote:
ICANN might not be the right place to discuss issues such as
I18N, but IETF is worse.
ICANN is not by its nature a standards body so that it's not
naturally well suited to discussion of standards
No, I think that it was an attempt to claim that no criticism should
ever be directed at that individual.
As is the case with the British monarch, those who leap to the defense
of the honor of the Queen are more often as not attempting to put
criticism of their own position beyond the bounds of
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
In theory we have a consensus based organization. In practice we have
a system where it is rather easy for some people to take strategic
offense as a tactic to shut down debate.
'Establishing (rough) consensus' is, at its
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:26:02PM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
I was very dissatisfied with the IETF's performance towards its agenda
until this occurred to me. It would have helped me immensely if it
were formally identified in this way (but then that would require the
IETF carry a
Total of 31 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 1 00:53:02 EDT 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.45% |2 | 8.56% |17475 | bernard_ab...@hotmail.com
6.45% |2 | 7.00% |14291 |
Channel) to Proposed Standard
Reply-to: i...@ietf.org
CC: m...@lists.ietf.org
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS Generic Associated Channel '
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
On Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 07:00-09:00am PDT (10:00-12:00 EDT,
14:00-16:00 GMT), BEHAVE will be having a teleconference interim meeting,
with the following agenda:
* 6/4 translation document organization
* 6/4 translation on a host
* DNS-ALG open issues
* translation open issues (e.g.,
