Bob,
Since you ask...
This looks good.
The only nit I can pick is with 5.1
The BCP calls for rules on expenses to be published.
The rule you are publishing is that the IAOC and/or its chair can
determine the expenses it pays to members of the IAOC for exceptional cases
only.
I have
Adrian,
I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but
this
rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word
appropriate in a protocol spec!
Yes, true, but this is really a rare exception. In the 1.5 years that I've
been on the IAOC,
Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
given this, I don't know how else you can solve it
Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
given this, I don't know how else you can solve it
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments
On 2010-09-13 02:21, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Adrian,
I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but
this
rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word
appropriate in a protocol spec!
Yes, true, but this is really a rare
Michael Dillon [mailto://wavetos...@googlemail.com] writes:
...
I am really uninterested in discussing the Maastricht situation
further except insofar as I think there are lessons in it that
have not been absorbed yet.
I wonder why an attendee who arrived late was left begging at
the
