Re: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

2011-01-20 Thread Mykyta Yevstifeyev
2011/1/21, Ted Hardie : > I agree with SM's concern that the mechanism by which this is > extended is underspecified. The draft contains one reserved > token, "blank", and a set of examples which make clear that there > is an unwritten set of known and unknown tokens which populate the "segment" >

Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

2011-01-20 Thread Thomas Narten
Total of 73 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 21 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 13.70% | 10 | 16.89% | 108644 | hal...@gmail.com 8.22% |6 | 11.13% |71600 | lars.egg...@nokia

Re: IETF 83 Venue

2011-01-20 Thread James M. Polk
At 03:31 PM 1/19/2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote: The IAOC is pleased to announce Paris as the site for IETF 83 from 25 - 30 March 2012. The IETF last met in the city in 2005 at IETF 63. Paris was the number one choice for a European venue in a venue preference survey conducted after I

Re: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

2011-01-20 Thread Ted Hardie
I agree with SM's concern that the mechanism by which this is extended is underspecified. The draft contains one reserved token, "blank", and a set of examples which make clear that there is an unwritten set of known and unknown tokens which populate the "segment" portion of the given ABNF. Provi

RE: Change control

2011-01-20 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
The only thing I can dream up (without an example) is that the submitting organization's version of something and the IETF's version end up diverging, and the submitting organization doesn't like that. To wit, the submitting organization wanted the added credibility of the "RFC" label without a

Re: Change control

2011-01-20 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker
That is why I really want to see a specific example of harm (which I note SM has refused to do). This is the sort of case where it is very easy to make the wrong decision if people are allowed to waffle on about what they imagine to be high principle when the rules were made the way they are to su

RE: Change control

2011-01-20 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
To be honest, I'm not even clear on what the issue is. If an organization creates a BCP in its own context based on the experiences of its constituents, and then the IETF uses that material to inform its own BCP on the same subject, and reasonable permission and attribution are given, what cons

Re: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

2011-01-20 Thread SM
At 07:56 14-01-11, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'The 'about' URI scheme' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please se

Re: Change control

2011-01-20 Thread SM
At 14:58 19-01-11, Donald Eastlake wrote: It depends. That's why there are different versions of the boilerplate depending on what rights the submitter is granting to the IETF. I'll reproduce the notice for completeness: "This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provi

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni-02

2011-01-20 Thread Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Ben, Apologies for missing your additional questions. Please see below for a response. Best regards, Matthew From: Ben Campbell To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" Reply-to: b...@nostrum.com Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni-02 X-RSN: 1/0/933/9723/54927 Thank