On 2012-10-23 02:05, Ian Hickson wrote:
...
I suspect it will break nothing, but I guess we'll find out.
I don't really understand how it _could_ break anything, so long as the
processing of IRI and URIs as defined by IETF is the same in the WHATWG
spec, except where software already differs
On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:42, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
Yes.
+1
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Tue 23/Oct/2012 01:49:41 +0200 The IAOC wrote:
We have tried to contact Marshall over this time period [...]
We think this process was not intended to be used when a sitting IAOC,
IESG, or IAB member vacates his/her position. We believe that the
intended use of this process was for
On 22 Oct 2012, at 21:48, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 10/22/2012 03:52 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
If we want to keep this in the spirit of long-established (newspaper)
traditions rather than a web page, we could use the IETF Journal for
recording the passing
Since you have his postal address, has anyone notified the police?
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
rules.
Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and
a member
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
Yes, with regret. Marshall has done a lot of good stuff for us over the years,
and I hope he is well and functioning.
However, Marshall filled a community-appointed post on
He has done tremendous work for the IETF. It however appaears as though he
really is unreachable and it makes sense that the post be treated as vacant.
On another note though, it is important to find out what happened to him as
what you have written appears out of character for him (neglecting
On Oct 23, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula wrote:
He has done tremendous work for the IETF. It however appaears as though he
really is unreachable and it makes sense that the post be treated as vacant.
On another note though, it is important to find out what happened to him as
Thank you Pelletier
On 23 October 2012 14:35, Pelletier Ray rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
On Oct 23, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula wrote:
He has done tremendous work for the IETF. It however appaears as though he
really is unreachable and it makes sense that the post be treated as
Peng,
Thanks for the quick response! Please see in line below.
On 10/22/2012 9:39 PM, Peng JIANG wrote:
Hello Lou,
As to the technical details, the next hop as identified by the Path
message in the VPN context, will have a route and associated label
within the VPN context. This
Henning,
I like what you are suggesting, but let me add two things:
* The ITU does something interesting for notable individuals, which is
that they offer a space on a web page to collect condolences. Such
a virtual book could be then presented to the family, to mark the
important
I wish I had known Abha. I recently searched for information about her, as I
was curious about her short AD career on some statistic that I looked up. She
seemed like a very nice person based on the stories that I found.
But back to topic. I'm with Benson on this issue. And I also think that
Lars Eggert wrote:
On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:42, Barry Leibabarryle...@computer.org wrote:
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
Yes.
+1
+1
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Marshall was focused on other activities
On 10/23/2012 03:01 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Lars Eggert wrote:
On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:42, Barry Leibabarryle...@computer.org wrote:
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
Yes.
+1
+1
Ditto.
Ray
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 18/10/2012 02:25, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
On 10/17/2012 7:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yeah. Turns out we (the Web standards community) haven't been doing
such a great job of making our specificatiosn match reality.:-(
Um, true... but it's
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 18/10/2012 02:25, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
On 10/17/2012 7:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yeah. Turns out we (the Web standards community) haven't been doing
such a great job of making our specificatiosn match reality.:-(
Um, true... but it's also
On Oct 21, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Peter Yee pe...@akayla.com wrote:
Chuck,
Ranges include the 0,255 that appears commonly in the document in
attribute definitions along with one case of -2147483648,2147483647.
Hi Peter-
Upon further review, I see the document uses interval notation when
On Oct 22, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 18/10/2012 02:25, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
On 10/17/2012 7:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yeah. Turns out we (the Web standards community) haven't been doing
such a great job of making our
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
I couldn't agree more! We've been waiting for four years for the URI
working group to get their act together and fix the URL mess. Nothing
has happened. We lost patience and are now doing it ourselves. ...
Clarifying: there is no URI Working
Ian,
On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
is not a URL.
Whether it's a valid URL
the question if not whether an empty string is a valid URI.
The point is that what you and Anne are addressing is parsing of URI
*References* not URIs.
Roy, IIUC, meant that is a URI
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Jan Algermissen wrote:
The point is that what you and Anne are addressing is parsing of URI
*References* not URIs.
Anne's spec defines how you get from any arbitrary string (plus a base
URL) to a data structure with fields like scheme, hostname, port, path,
etc. The
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Jan Algermissen wrote:
The point is that what you and Anne are addressing is parsing of URI
*References* not URIs.
Anne's spec defines how you get from any arbitrary string (plus a base
URL) to a data
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, James M Snell wrote:
Is there a list of issues that you and Anne are working from for this?
If there indeed is a need to update the URI/IRI RFC's to address
specific problems I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to draft up an
I-D. I'd be more than willing to help out
On 23/10/2012, at 10:16 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I can't speak for Anne, but having experienced the IETF via the hybi work,
my own opinion is that the main reason I wouldn't work with the IETF is
that the community these days values consensus over technical value and
running
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 23/10/2012, at 9:35 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Consensus isn't a value I hold highly, but review of Anne's work is
welcome.
If the IETF community didn't want Anne to do this work, then the IETF
community should have done it.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 23/10/2012, at 10:16 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I can't speak for Anne, but having experienced the IETF via the hybi
work, my own opinion is that the main reason I wouldn't work with the
IETF is that the community these days
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Don't much care about the venue, as long as there's *some* coordination
/ communication.
Everyone is welcome to participate in the WHATWG list.
Doing the work as a diff spec? That's what we did for a while, but it
doesn't work. Having to
On 23/10/2012, at 10:31 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 23/10/2012, at 10:16 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I can't speak for Anne, but having experienced the IETF via the hybi
work, my own opinion is that the main reason I
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
So, you're saying that you can't work in this environment (*fans self*)
because of the arguments you're making?
I'm saying this is why I don't want to work here, yes.
References, please.
This very thread is evidence enough, but see also
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 23/10/2012, at 10:40 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Don't much care about the venue, as long as there's *some*
coordination / communication.
Everyone is welcome to participate in the
snip
I’d have to say that URI interoperability problems haven’t come near
getting into the list of top-20 pain points.
/snip
I can't recall the last time i experienced URI interoperability problems
across various user agents/implementations on the public Internet. My
problems w/ browser
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Tim Bray wrote:
One more data point... I work on Web software all the time and have for
many years; in recent years mostly at the REST (app-to-app HTTP
conversations) rather than browser-wrangling level. I�d have to say
that URI interoperability problems haven�t come
Chuck,
I'll cheerfully settle for the status quo. Please ignore that comment.
Thanks.
-Peter
On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Chuck Lever chuck.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Peter Yee pe...@akayla.com wrote:
Chuck,
Ranges
Hello Lou,
As to the technical details, the next hop as identified by the Path
message in the VPN context, will have a route and associated label
within the VPN context. This VPN label can be added to the Path
message, just as it would be for any VPN IP packet, and additional
labels
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-storm-iser-12
Reviewer:
On 22/10/2012 23:35, Ian Hickson wrote:
Consensus isn't a value I hold highly,
!
#g
--
Graham Klyne scripsit:
On 22/10/2012 23:35, Ian Hickson wrote:
Consensus isn't a value I hold highly,
!
Just call him Frank Sinatra.
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.orghttp://ccil.org/~cowan
I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
alive again from the water. I
On 2012-10-23 01:59, Ian Hickson wrote:
...
Whether WebSockets is a good idea or not is besides the point. The point
is that the hybi group was not a pleasant experience for me. If I were to
be in a position to do Web Sockets again, I would decline the opportunity
to do it through the IETF.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
I couldn't agree more! We've been waiting for four years for the URI
working group to get their act together and fix the URL mess. Nothing
has happened. We lost patience and are
Wait just one minute.
Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the
position). He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities.
I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be
followed.
Get a petition signed. Run a 1 week call for
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
rules.
I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be
followed.
At 16:49 22-10-2012, The IAOC wrote:
The IAOC has reviewed BCP101 and concludes it does not handle this
case very well. BCP101 says that if an IAOC member abrogates his or
her duties the recall process in BCP10/RFC3777 may be used. The
specific text is:
IAOC members are subject to recall in
On 23/10/2012 13:16, Michael StJohns wrote:
Wait just one minute.
Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the
position). He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities.
In even stronger terms: if a person after many years of involvement and
understanding
Umm.. no.
When would you consider the office vacant? Missing one meeting, missing two?
Not calling in for a week, a month, two months? Etc. I'm currently in jury
duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial? I'm in the service and on a
classified assignment for three months? Trapped
On 10/23/2012 11:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
rules.
I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks
{Apologies for the bunched reply - I was offline for a bit, now trying to
catch up without inundating the list.}
From: Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu
Do we need to wait until someone who has made significant contribution
to have passed away before we recognize their contributions?
I would support the call to use our defined recall procedures, even if
it takes a few weeks longer.
And not unnecessarily set a precedent. If you feel the rules are not
suitable, than we should think about adjusting them. And be careful, it
may take only a hum to change a procedure, but the
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
When would you consider the office vacant?
The complete data on what attempts had been made to communicate with him were
given to us all, so we can all form our own individual opinion as to whether
sufficient conditions had been met.
I'm
On 10/23/2012 12:21 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
It is neither safe, nor appropriate, to assume that the subset of
people humming about this issue overlaps sufficiently with the subset
that hummed about establishing the procedure to
Doug,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore
one.
No procedure is ignored.
BCP 101 does not define the rules for declaring a position vacant. In
absense of such rules, the IAOC decided to consult
On 10/23/2012 01:07 PM, David Kessens wrote:
Doug,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore
one.
No procedure is ignored.
That is a matter of interpretation.
BCP 101 does not define the rules
Mike has convinced me that we should be following the recall process. So I
will change my initial Yes, to a No; we have to follow the process we've
set up. Do a recall.
Barry
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Michael StJohns wrote:
Umm.. no.
When would you consider the office vacant? Missing
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
You've also snipped out the entire portion of my message where I talked
about actually changing the procedure
I happened to see one point I wanted to say something about (the 'hum group'
thingy), that's all.
And now that I've thought about
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
You asked for feedback, you have now received a non-trivial number of
responses saying that arbitrarily declaring the position vacant is not
an appropriate action. You have also received volunteers for the recall
process. Rather than spending more time
Noel,
From: Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org
And maybe we can get a 3 minute time piece from him (or someone
authorised to speak on his behalf). If he would resign due to the fact
that he has no time at the moment and for the foreseeable future,
everything would be settled
On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Wait just one minute.
Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the
position).
I don't see anything in BCP 10 that says those are the only to ways to vacate a
position. Those two are
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
If you choose not call what you're doing a URL but by some other
term (fleen is my favorite), then the issue does not arise
Since the IETF doesn't call it a URL anyway, I don't see the problem with
terminology.
Please see RFC
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
Yes.
+1
I agree.
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Marshall was focused on other activities
That's good to hear. I was worried about him when I read the mail from
Bob. And yes,
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00
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 just
like
At 05:55 PM 10/23/2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Wait just one minute.
Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the
position).
I don't see anything in BCP 10 that says those are the only
Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points.
I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community
if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would
be true if the IAOC had gone ahead unilaterally and asked the
On 10/23/12 4:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points.
I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community
if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would
be true if the IAOC had
On 10/23/12 4:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points.
I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community
if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would
be true if the IAOC had
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Having multiple specs means an implementor has to refer to multiple specs
to implement one algorithm, which is not a way to get interoperability.
Bugs creep in much faster when implementors have to switch between specs
just in
At 16:25 23-10-2012, Bob Hinden wrote:
The IAOC has operational responsibilities. Having one voting member
not attending many meetings makes it harder obtaining a
consensus. Without a consensus the IAOC can not approve contracts, RFPs, etc.
According to the IAOC procedures:
A quorum for
First in regards to Bob's post a bit ago, I personally am not asserting
that the IAOC has broken any rules. I was sincere in my applause for
their requesting feedback on this question; in spite of the fact that I
disagree with their premise.
On 10/23/2012 2:32 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Doug Barton
On 10/23/2012 8:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use,
While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
and should
On 10/24/12 6:23 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
With respect, you haven't spent much time with either the ITU or ICANN
if you think that 3777 is rigidly bureaucratic by their standards.
This is one of those situations where we have to take our medicine. Doug
There are actually very few ITU rules,
On 10/23/2012 9:51 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 10/24/12 6:23 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
With respect, you haven't spent much time with either the ITU or ICANN
if you think that 3777 is rigidly bureaucratic by their standards.
This is one of those situations where we have to take our medicine. Doug
On 10/23/12 8:51 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
There are actually very few ITU rules, and very many guidelines. The
latter are the exact opposite of rigid, but subject to overturning by
Member States at any time. I had thought that we were roughly the same
in that regard, so as to avoid a
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
and should not be undertaken lightly.
No disagreement there - but we're not trying to recall him because of actions
he took, things he said, etc, etc.
Like I said, I think
Yes but -
The process you refer to deals with temporary incapacity where the office
holder might not want to go away for a while. And even then there's a process
and a defined group of people who run that process. (cf 25th amendment).
I agree with you that removing him would be the
85th IETF Meeting
Atlanta, GA, USA
November 4-9, 2012
Host: North American Cable Industry
**PLEASE NOTE: Daylight Saving Time (United States) ends Sunday, November 4,
2012 at 2:00 AM, please remember to put your clocks back 1 hour.**
Meeting venue: Hilton Atlanta
The Address Resolution for Massive numbers of hosts in the Data center
(armd) working group in the Operations and Management Area has
concluded. The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Benoit Claise.
The mailing list will remain open.
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Multipoint LDP in-band signaling for Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint- to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths'
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-07.txt as Proposed
77 matches
Mail list logo
