Fred Baker writes:
I'm not sure I agree that Friday is a "problem"; the problem is that
we have N working groups asking for M meetings and N*M needs to be <=
that fixed number. Friday is a solution, one that has certain
downsides. Stanislaus doesn't like the solution and IMHO has not
propo
Arnt Gulbrandsen allegedly wrote on 11/11/2009 6:08 PM:
> Fred Baker writes:
>> I'm not sure I agree that Friday is a "problem"; the problem is that
>> we have N working groups asking for M meetings and N*M needs to be <=
>> that fixed number. Friday is a solution, one that has certain
>> downsi
Hi, Mary,
I was really surprised this year when NomCom announced local interview slots
wherever the NomCom members were, thought to myself that I should arrange
for one of the interviews, and then got busy, left the country, etc. ...
But I'd like to thank you guys for making this offer.
You
Scott Brim writes:
Even a full Friday isn't enough to remove the conflicts. In fact I'm
triple-booked on Friday itself. There is no chance the IETF will fit in
4 days. That hasn't been possible for years.
Why do so many people in WG meetings read mail, look bored and hardly
say a word, then
I read mail and listen and look at the slides, when I'm
in a session that is secondary to my main interests.
That doesn't mean I'm bored (maybe I always look bored),
but I don't see that it affects the question whether we
can fit all the parallel sessions into 4.5 days.
Brian
On 2009-11-11 22
Arnt Gulbrandsen allegedly wrote on 11/11/2009 6:23 PM:
> Scott Brim writes:
>> Even a full Friday isn't enough to remove the conflicts. In fact I'm
>> triple-booked on Friday itself. There is no chance the IETF will fit in
>> 4 days. That hasn't been possible for years.
>
> Why do so many peop
There was an error in the reservation announcement. When I first set
it up, I managed to hit the wrong date, and so I set up a correct one.
The error was sent to the list earlier; it's still an error.
oops
Here is the correct data.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Frederick Baker
Date: Nov
Scott Brim writes:
Seriously, are you suggesting that it might be possible to cluster WGs
together so that people can stay for parts of the week?
I hadn't thought of that...
No, I was suggesting that if registrants explicitly say which WGs are
really interesting ("conflicts in that set spoil
On Nov 11, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Scott Brim writes:
Seriously, are you suggesting that it might be possible to cluster
WGs together so that people can stay for parts of the week?
Of course it might be possible - in fact, I would assert that it is
highly likely to be
Who would like to adopt this idea:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01.txt
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Russ, Olaf, et al,
I was serious in my recommendation to experiment with limiting
question (comment) time at the microphone at plenaries. I believe
it'll not only help mere mortals pay more attention, but will also
encourage those folks that have questions or comments to be more
concise, thereby
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Who would like to adopt this idea:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01.txt
Typically, it's better to gain some agreement about tradeoffs among some
choices, prior to starting lobbying for a particular choice.
This has the distinct
From the perspective of the world outside the IETF, this is already
the case. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC...
--Richard
On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Who would like to adopt this idea:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-
all-01.txt
Bria
+1
Stephan
On 11/11/09 7:53 PM, "Danny McPherson" wrote:
> Russ, Olaf, et al,
> I was serious in my recommendation to experiment with limiting
> question (comment) time at the microphone at plenaries. I believe
> it'll not only help mere mortals pay more attention, but will also
> encourage th
Hi,
From the perspective of the world outside the IETF, this is already the
case. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC...
I don't think this is a truth universally acknowledged.
I have heard the IETF disparaged a number of times on account of "hardly
having any standards". For example, a full Standa
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:08:44AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I would personally be surprised if a cluster analysis or principal
> component
> analysis of the RFID data didn't reveal some means of separating the
> meeting sessions like this.
>
> Whether this is a good idea is another matt
Not THIS again. Let's look at a few of the standards that are commonly
used today:
HTTP: DS
SNTP: PS
SIP: PS
IPv6 Addressing Architecture: DS
SMTP: DS & Full standard
MPLS-VPNs: PS
BGPv4: DS
MIME: DS
XMPP: PS (although it seems the real work goes on elsewhere)
OSPF: Full standard
RIPv2: full st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "Dave" == Dave CROCKER writes:
>> I'm not sure I agree that Friday is a "problem"; the problem is
>> that we have N working groups asking for M meetings and N*M needs
>> to be <= that fixed number. Friday is a solution, one that has
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Stanislav Shalunov wrote:
"But nobody will come to the technical plenary Friday afternoon!" --
1. We did come to the technical plenary when it was the last thing on
Thursday, and it was in the evening.
2. If people won't come to the technical plenary, they won't come to WG
+1
you shouldn' need to be an IETF insider to actually understand IETF standards.
John
Sent from my Nokia N900.
- Original message -
> Not THIS again. Let's look at a few of the standards that are commonly
> used today:
>
> HTTP: DS
> SNTP: PS
> SIP: PS
> IPv6 Addressing Architecture:
As I begged at the mike last night, let's make sure that this problem
actually causes pain before spending one more second discussing it.
Just for completeness :-|
There is also the question of standards where we DO NOT WANT people to
implement the full standard and say they are through - with
I did not take the comment as disrespectful. A timer might be a very
good experiment.
Russ
At 05:53 AM 11/11/2009, Danny McPherson wrote:
Russ, Olaf, et al,
I was serious in my recommendation to experiment with limiting
question (comment) time at the microphone at plenaries. I believe
it'll
Individuals taking a long time to talk either on the mike or responding
on the stage :-) is one problem.
At times I wonder if a bigger issue is how long certain topics are
discussed. I'm sorry but I just can't get excited about labeling of
standards track RFCs, or even about how to get early r
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: draft-dusseault-ht
Adrian,
I think both statements are true.
I've seen operators putting almost any RFC in RFPs, (actually done
it myself) STD, DS, PS, Informational, Experimental, Historic and
April 1st. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC!
On the other hand talking to folks active in other SDOs you very
often hear the "
Didn't Harald put up a timer sometimes during open mike?
Tony Hansen
Russ Housley wrote:
I did not take the comment as disrespectful. A timer might be a very
good experiment.
Russ
At 05:53 AM 11/11/2009, Danny McPherson wrote:
Russ, Olaf, et al,
I was serious in my recommendation
i am remembering that this is correct. i have a faint memory that the timer
might have been per topic (so you cut off the followups and moved to the
next question), at least once or twice.
i have a faint memory of a lot of things. harald? :-)
spencer
- Original Message -
From: "Tony
Short informational notice.
A new update of NroffEdit is available (
http://aaa-sec.com/nroffedit/index.html ), supporting the boilerplate from
the new Trust Legal Provisions from September 2009.
/Stefan
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.i
Tony Hansen allegedly wrote on 11/12/2009 11:11 AM:
> Didn't Harald put up a timer sometimes during open mike?
See attached ...
Title: Discussion Timer
TimeRemaining
0:00
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m
One idea discussed over various beverages last night was based on an
observation about the high bar that most Proposed Standards have had to
pass over in order to become RFCs: many of them would not have gotten to
publication without having already gone through interoperability testing.
So the
I wish to add a specific point to this.
I also raised a proposal for over-weekend meetings a few years back. I feel
that the attendees to US IETF, which have often predominated, but in the
general sense the attendees to IETF who fly for more than 12h to get there,
suffer a material disadvantag
Forgive me if I do not see botching the IPSEC spec so that it fails
through NAT as an argument against NAT.
Why don't we repair the damage instead? If we are serious about the
IPv6 transition then we should be insisting that IPSEC work
transparently over NAT46 and NAT64.
Its easy enough to solve
The same is true of SMTP. RFC822 is the 'standard',
We have a broken model. There are not enough hours in the day for the
IESG to spend time deciding whether HTTP has reached a sufficient
maturity level to be considered a full 'standard'. That may or may not
be a problem. But the RFC 2822/822 issu
IPv6 is just fine. The problem is not the technology we would
transition to, it is the lack of transition strategy and refusal to
think about deployment strategy in some quarters.
While they were building the big dig in Boston they actually built an
entire interchange from scratch and then demolis
It is really hard to keep management backing for a standards process
that does not deliver standards.
I know that there are some people in the IETF who would very much like
to see the commercial entities banished. And to some extent that has
happened, there is a reason that IBM and Microsoft put m
Yup, and most of those proposed standards and draft standards should
have been declared full standards *long* ago.
What we *don't* do well is revising the levels of standards that got
published, became fully interoperable and deployed without needing a rev
of the document. Why is their status
Raise the bar more? Not at all -- that's not what I said. I said that
the bar has *already been raised* so high that many of our I-Ds have
already become fully interoperable before they get an RFC number assigned.
What I said, is that if you *have* interoperability and deployment when
you get
At 09:44 PM 11/11/2009, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:28, Tony Hansen wrote:
published directly at Draft Standard status
Raise the bar so they stay at I-D level for even longer? A sizable
part of the Internet is run on I-Ds, not on PS.
I think the right direction is to publi
RFC 2026 section 6.2:
6 months from PS => DS
4 months and 1 meeting for DS => FS.
As John notes though, the clock currently begins after RFC publication
time. There's no allowance granted for time already spent in jail.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
James M. Polk wrote:
At
[As before, my apologies for the shotgun nature of this email.]
Folks,
I would like to provide an update to the logistics and agenda for tonight's
Smart Grid Bar BOF.
The Bar BOF will begin at 8:30 so that folks attending the plenary have a
chance to grab dinner. Note that the meeting room
On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:28, Tony Hansen wrote:
published directly at Draft Standard status
Raise the bar so they stay at I-D level for even longer? A sizable
part of the Internet is run on I-Ds, not on PS.
I think the right direction is to publish PS earlier. If done right,
it's only si
Tim had some troubles setting up the WebEx conference, so we are using
audio streaming, along with a Jabber chatroom here:
xmpp:smartg...@conference.jabber.org?join
On 11/11/09 5:44 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> FYI - the slide decks in use for the Smart Grid "Bar BOF" are available at:
> ftp://ftp
Tony Hansen wrote:
One idea discussed over various beverages last night was based on an
observation about the high bar that most Proposed Standards have had
to pass over in order to become RFCs: many of them would not have
gotten to publication without having already gone through
interoperabil
During previous technical sessions I mailed an announcement about the technical
plenary and in those announcements I've asked something along the lines of:
> If you consider asking a question during the open-microphone session it
> would be helpful to send that question to the IAB in advance.
>
44 matches
Mail list logo
