Henk == Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net writes:
Henk So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 7
Henk or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the other
Henk 4 or 5 for WG meetings. That way, we'll have all the BOFs done by
Henk Tuesday
Dave Crocker said:
1. Can you provide some rationale for the details of the experiment?
2. Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?
1. In terms of rationale, I am reminded of Kinky Freedman's slogan, when
running for Governor or Texas: Why Not?
(see
Brian:
Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
proposal to ADs.
Do you mean: make the BOF request cutoff later? If so, that is
a feature, but since people are deadline driven, I'm not sure
that moving the deadline is a major advantage.
The deadline for BOF requests comes
On 11/8/10 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
schedule all BOFs for Monday afternoon.
I think this is a bad idea for the reasons stated earlier. This reduces
cross-protocol review more than the minimal amount that is going on now.
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm
On 11/8/2010 6:07 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Dave Crocker said:
1. Can you provide some rationale for the details of the experiment?b
2. Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?
1. In terms of rationale, I am reminded of Kinky Freedman's slogan, when
running for Governor
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 06:26:49PM -0800, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment. The
goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
more time to craft BOF proposals.
I think the goals are good.
The proposed experiment
Assuming, of course, that we continue to expect that the IESG will do the
right thing, whatever that turns out to be ...
Henk == Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net writes:
Henk So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the
7
Henk or 8 meeting slots in each session are
From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ
Housley [hous...@vigilsec.com]
The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF
meeting for the next one. We are hearing complaints, and subjectively,
the
WGs already have a charter and WG chairs. It would be *very* unusual to decide
to revoke a WG's charter between the time that the request to meet has been
made and the secretariat puts together a draft IETF charter (much less unusual
to update a WG charter in a way that is fully consistent with
Scott, Sam, and Glenn rightly pointed out last night that my comments
at the mic were
long on rant and short on substance. My apologies to the community for that.
I committed to provide more substantive comments; in order to meet the
time limits
Olaf noted, I have provided a first draft in
On Nov 7, 2010, at 6:26 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment. The
goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
more time to craft BOF proposals.
The proposed experiment includes three parts. First, schedule all
During the IPv6 panel at the plenary last night, representatives
of several major service providers discussed their experiences
with IPv6. It became clear that many of their experiments involve technologies
that delegate Provider-Aggregated (PA) IPv6 prefixes
to the customer instead of
On 2010-11-09 13:54, Templin, Fred L wrote:
During the IPv6 panel at the plenary last night, representatives
of several major service providers discussed their experiences
with IPv6. It became clear that many of their experiments involve
technologies that delegate Provider-Aggregated (PA)
Maybe for the experiment we should also move the Social to Friday
evening: 1) it won't interfere with IP meeting time; 2) less people so
better chance of getting a ticket; 3) more folks will stay for Friday
meetings; 4) IETF meeting will be over so we can let our hair down -
oops that's not a
Hi,
part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so
people can discuss it during the week.
dbh
-Original Message-
From: iesg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:29 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Like others that have chimed in, I'm just concerned that it will be
difficult to attend multiple BOFs of interest if they're all scheduled
against each other.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, David Harrington ietf...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi,
part of the justification is to have the
I was looking for less of an analysis and more of considerations (of the
current flows and actors), I'm not sure how to adapt what you have done to
actually fit in the current specification, was your thought that you would
produce a separate security analysis document?
-Original
On 11/08/2010 12:47 GMT+08:00, David Harrington wrote:
Hi,
part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so
people can discuss it during the week.
dbh
Yes, that's important, and better than what we have now.
I think that of what I've heard so far, the idea of scheduling
Greetings,
Updates:
A playlist with all 8 audio streams is:
http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf79.m3u
streams being archived after recording are temporarily being
archived at:
http://79archive.dyndns.org/ietf79/
-Audio
___
From: Ross Callon [rcal...@juniper.net]
Thus [BOF proposals] take more time to evaluate [than requests for WG sessions].
I'm sure that's true. But that doesn't change the fact that a useful BOF idea
is likely to
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'MIKEY-IBAKE: Identity-Based Mode of Key Distribution in Multimedia
Internet KEYing (MIKEY) '
draft-cakulev-mikey-ibake-01.txt as an Informational RFC
An IPR disclosure statement for this
All -
We are aware that there is a problem with Internet-Draft announcements
being sent to the I-D-Announce list. The problem appears to be
malformed MIME headers, and/or incorrect handling of those headers.
Initial triage indicates that the problem may be related to a recent
update sent to us
The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv4 lease query by Relay Agent Remote ID'
draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has received a request from the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 WG
(mext) to consider the following document:
- 'Mobility Support in IPv6'
draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
24 matches
Mail list logo
