Hello,
At 07:48 20-08-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
The purpose of posting minutes is presumably to satisfy the
requirements of BCP 101 relative to open and transparent
operation and keeping the community informed. Yet both of these
Timeliness is also important. The latest IESG minutes
Hi,
I'm proposing a change to the ID boilerplate in order to save some
lines on the first page. The current text says:
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute
Looks good to me!
Best regards,
Pasi
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo)
Sent: 27 October, 2009 11:29
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
Hi,
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. That URL leads to a
query page, not a list of current drafts.
___
Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
I'm proposing a change to the ID boilerplate in order to save some lines
on the first page. The current text says:
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may
The idea is generally acceptable to me but:
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
While we're at it, these two sentences are contradictory.
Internet-Drafts
On 2009-10-27, at 14:09, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. That URL leads to a
query page, not a list of current drafts.
Hi,
On 2009-10-27, at 14:39, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2009-10-27, at 14:09, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. That URL
On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
SM wrote:
Posting documents in a format that involves text files with very
long lines that require horizontal scrolling with many systems
is not a favor to the community or an aid to ready
comprehensibility.
A stray thought:
While it is
Hi, Julian,
The first URL was broken since the IETF web site redesign, but nobody has
noticed. That - to me - is a pretty strong indication that nobody has
been using it. (It is now fixed.)
The second URL points to a list of FTP mirrors, fully half of which are
defunct in some way (don't
Yeah, I got wrapped around this on the WGchairs list, too. Thanks, Jeff, for
schooling me.
The problem is that other groups really is open-ended, but we don't mean
other groups somewhere in the inhabited galaxy, that produce working drafts
using the same format, we mean other groups like IAB
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
...
I'm not the guy who has to keep syncing the tools with boilerplate
changes, so I'm not sure how much of a vote I should get, but my vote
would be that taking up that much of the first page of every draft with
information that is wrong, but that nobody even cares
I'm very confused about the relationship of this draft and the work
the OAUTH WG is doing. Can you explain?
On Oct 9, 2009, at 15:38 , The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'The OAuth Core 1.0 Protocol '
Scott,
Good point. Not sure I completely agree on the interpretation
of the current wording, but I agree that it is improved by your
suggestion.
--
Eric Gray
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott
Brim
Sent: Tuesday,
Lars,
This can be fixed by changing by changing is at to is
available via...
--
Eric
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lars
Eggert
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:39 AM
To: Scott Lawrence
Cc: IETF discussion list
Spencer,
I am pretty sure it really is that open ended (i.e. - there is no
real restriction on who can submit an Internet Draft, other than that
they probably have to have Internet access, and that means that it is
difficult to say that other groups does not include any group in the
This draft is the original community specification created outside the IETF. It
was this work that inspired the creation of the OAUTH WG and is explicitly set
as the initial draft for the WG in its charter. The draft is submitted as an
informational RFC to document existing deployment and
On Oct 25, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Not in the IPv6 address space, anyway. And if it is, there's
something wrong and we should put it right.
Just been reading IAB's commentary on IPv6 NAT. It seems to me that
we are perpetuating the worst technology in existence
Hi, Eric,
The guidance I was getting on the wgchairs mailing list was that other
groups is limited to other groups that also use the Internet-Draft
mechanism (including submissions, repositories, etc) - I was interpreting
other groups more broadly, and was told that I was confused.
Thanks,
Hi Dean,
I appreciate that this is a realistic challenge for one of the key
users of the technology.
As a key user of the technology. Why didn't we learn about this
earlier in the process? Perhaps if we did, we could have supplied
a solution which doesn't suck as badly as NAT.
I am quite
The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'PATCH Method for HTTP '
draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt as a Proposed Standard
This could be sort of a nitpick, but
It seems to me that this
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'PATCH Method for HTTP '
draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
Spencer,
Perhaps they thought you confused, but perhaps they were
wrong?
As far as I know, the current process for publishing FOO
as an RFC is via submission of an Internet Draft. Anyone can
do that.
--
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Spencer Dawkins
Apparently I was reading it too broadly - it's not just the format, it's the
use of the submission process. But I'm still guessing - the only thing I had
to go on was other groups, and that's not a constrained set to me.
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: Eric Gray
I understand this as the documentation of what has been specified by the
original oAuth crowd, known as oAuth 1.0, which is out there and deployed.
AFAIK, the oAuth group is working on improvements and additions to this base
specification. From the charter:
[...]
This specifically means that as
At 11:28 AM +0200 10/27/09, Lars Eggert wrote:
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current
Internet-Drafts is at
Proposed change:
Many Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF); other groups and individuals create Internet-Drafts that are
included in the repository that is maintained by the IETF. That repository is
available at some URL.
Perhaps more
Greg,
On 2009-10-28 05:42, Greg Daley wrote:
Hi Dean,
I appreciate that this is a realistic challenge for one of the key
users of the technology.
As a key user of the technology. Why didn't we learn about this
earlier in the process?
Well, the military interest in damage-proof
Dave CROCKER wrote:
SM wrote:
Posting documents in a format that involves text files with very
long lines that require horizontal scrolling with many systems
is not a favor to the community or an aid to ready
comprehensibility.
wraping long lines is not a new technology
A stray
Sorry for top-post.
in a purely personal capacity, having spent many MANY hours jabber
scribing in a number of WG (IPFIX, DNSext/DNSop/SIDR, plenary):
Its a thankless (mostly) task.
its exhausting for more than 30min without a break.
its impossible to participate in a WG discussion an
The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast
WG (pim) to consider the following document:
- 'Authentication and Confidentiality in PIM-SM Link-local Messages '
draft-ietf-pim-sm-linklocal-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next
A modified charter has been submitted for the Handover Keying (hokey)
working group in the Security Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any
determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing list
32 matches
Mail list logo
