Yaakov,
See inline...
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Yaakov Stein
Sent: zondag 11 oktober 2009 10:18
To: hhelvo...@huawei.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Call:
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements,>(Requirementsfor OA
On 10/11/09 8:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and
requirements for discussing meeting venues and that many of the
postings are moving towards a precedent that the IETF really does not
want to set.
I strongly agree. I think mixing up
All,
after several private discussions, I'd like to communicate
long-standing substantial concerns and conclusions related to
the current version of the
"IESG Procedures for Independent Submission and IRTF Stream" I-D,
.
Preamble:
"A strong democracy needs a strong opposition"
(nearly prove
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 15:31 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > I
> > carefully stayed away from social policy issues
>
> >> 1) What is political speech in China?
> ...
> >> 2) Are there any special rules about publishing and broadcasting? I
> ...
> >> 5) When discussi
Scott Lawrence wrote:
I don't think it's helpful for you to repeatedly try to shut down
attempts to get answers to questions that many people on the list have
repeatedly said that they think are relevant and important.
Sure it is. It is specifically helpful.
The questions constitute a deni
On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The questions constitute a denial of service attack on IETF
operations.
I really don't think so. I don't even think there's
a denial of service effect, regardless of intent. The
community was asked for feedback about meeting in the
PRC given w
+1
I think issues have been raised that should not be relevant and
that should be considered, if at all, as part of some other
question or issue. But most of the recent ones, including
Cullen's questions, seem very much in line with trying to
understand the question the IAOC decided to ask for as
+1
Cullen is not inquiring after social policy, he's asking what the
practical constraints are likely to be if there is a meeting in China.
This is a sensible question, worthy of a thoughtful, well-researched
response.
>> I suspect you -- and most of the rest of us -- can't give a
definitiv
Hi Tian,
I think the question here is what makes for a "politically sensitive
discussion". In places where IETF meetings have historically been held,
there has been a lot of distance between "technical topics" and
"political topics". In the US and much of Europe, for example,
discussions of
You said:
"In the US and much of Europe, for example, discussions of techniques
for avoiding firewalls or anonymizing traffic are largely considered
technical, not political. (Although people might have political
reasons for discussing these topics.)
The concern is that in the Chinese cont
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:44:58AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> The questions constitute a denial of service attack on IETF operations.
>
> In terms of principle, I and others have pointed out the basic flaw in
> asking these types of question. The mere fact of having some questions
> does not
At 10:29 AM -0700 10/9/09, SM wrote:
...
Section 1.1 of the draft mentions that:
"The IESG may provide an IESG note to an Independent Submission or
IRTF Stream document to explain the specific relationship, if any, to
IETF work."
That's a "may". From what you said, I deduce that you wo
On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto
as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were
legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the
local policy would not notice.
Henk, just
If you want a non smoking sleeping room and you are staying at one of
the IETF 76 overflow properties, you will need to make your request a
via a separate email. When you receive the email confirmation of your
initial reservation, you will see at the very end of the email a
section titled "
Is there any planned ad-hoc meeting/session related to this topic in
Hiroshima meeting?
Peny
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> Thanks. You already know this, as does Russ Housley, but I'll say it out
> loud for others to hear.
>
> At the third NIST workshop on the Smart Grid, w
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Peny Yang wrote:
Is there any planned ad-hoc meeting/session related to this topic in
Hiroshima meeting?
Well, ROLL and 6lowpan are relevant.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki and specifically http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BifIETF76
has a BOF
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto
as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were
legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the
local policy would n
17 matches
Mail list logo
