On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:25 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
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
On 24/10/2012 21:22, Barry Leiba wrote:
The draft that proposes changes to the RFC3777/BCP10 to deal with
vacancies is now available.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00
...
I think this is a fine proposal, and I support it and hope the community
will show consensus
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent, possessor, or officer a vacant office
vacant thrones
Dear Bob,
It is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
As far as I know, his wife had medical issue this year.
Thank you,
Tina
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:50 AM, The IAOC bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
vacancy that the
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
someone unsatisfied with a business decision by the adjusted IAOC
membership could sue based on documented process not being followed to
appoint the membership.
Nothing can stop someone from filing a suit, no matter what you do (even if
you
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
...
So if people all hum to OK all that, it has _just as much legitimacy_ as
_any other policy/procedure set into place by the IETF in plenary mode_.
Alas, that's not how we do
Bob, Russ... repeating here what I said in the other thread, I suggest
that...
- the authors of draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd post an -01 version TODAY,
incorporating comments received so far,
- Russ, as Gen AD, immediately issue a formal (4 week) last call on that
version, and
- the document be
From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can
change any/all policy/procedures, right?
Alas, that's not how we do things.
Wrong. That's exactly how we do things. Any piece of electronic paper you
point to to
Barry,
If you believe that a change to process is necessary to make a ruling on
absentee-ism, then you will also (on reflection) believe that process changes
cannot be made retro-active.
So, rushing this through (I do not mean to be pejorative in my use of rushing)
will not actually help the
--On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23
-0400 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Bob, Russ... repeating here what I said in the other thread, I
suggest that...
- the authors of draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd post an -01
version TODAY, incorporating comments
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:37 AM, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
No, Anne hasn't finished defining conformance yet. (He just started
today.)
This is a political dodge to delay the inevitable discussion of
address space
Has anyone bothered to ask counsel for an opinion about the issues StJohns
raised?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:47 AM
To: Doug Barton
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23
-0400 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
If we do that, unless something odd happens we will have this
process update formally approved BY OUR PROCESS in five weeks.
Let's
Hi Noel,
At 05:53 25-10-2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
It's going to be controversial.
So, view the original call from the IAOC as a request to the IETF, in formal
plenary mode, to make
--On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:24 -0400 John Leslie
j...@jlc.net wrote:
...
I really, strongly, object to this way of proceeding. Making
fundamental procedural changes in haste and in the middle of a
perceived crisis is never a good idea for any organization.
I don't agree this is
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into
force.
I'm still amazed at the number of messages the resolution of this issue has
generated.
There
There are obviously orthogonal problems here.
If we were doing this as code, these would be separate functions and most
everyone would agree that it would make both testing and understanding
easier.
Why is it different with specs? The hardest part of specs is choosing which
one is right. The
The IEEE Registration Authority (IEEE RA) assigns Ethertypes with
oversight from the IEEE Registration Authority Committee (IEEE RAC).
(See http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/.) Some IETF
protocol specification make use of Ethertypes. All Ethertype requests
are subject to review
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent,
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. RFC 2026,
BCP 9, describes the purpose of I-Ds, and it also provides some policies
that govern the I-D Repository. RFC 2026 says:
During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
document are made available for
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into
force.
When Marshall was appointed the rules we
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place.
To change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
definition retroactive.
By that logic, _any_ change to any rule involving, say, the IESG (repeat for
On 10/25/12 10:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Otherwise you'll be changing the powers/etc that they had when they were
seated - i.e. retroactive changes to their powers/etc.
I'm not seeing any movement in the discussion - it's probably time to
talk with an attorney.
Melinda
On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new
Hello Stephane,
My apologies. The shutdown message should have included a pointer to the
following email, which was posted on the ARMD mailing list by Benson Schliesser
on June 22:
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/armd/current/msg00472.html
Ron
On 10/25/2012 12:05 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the
On 10/25/2012 11:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. To
change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
definition retroactive.
By that logic, _any_ change to any rule
On 10/25/12 11:13 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
First, I disagree with your belief that what you propose would not be
retroactive. Second, it's worth pointing out that if the IAOC put an
equal amount of effort into the recall procedure, the problem would be
just as solved, without danger of
On 10/25/2012 12:21 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/25/12 11:13 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
First, I disagree with your belief that what you propose would not be
retroactive. Second, it's worth pointing out that if the IAOC put an
equal amount of effort into the recall procedure, the problem would
On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
_punitive_
Again, you are confused.
This action is not about punishing an individual, and I would be violently
opposed to it if it were.
This is my last message on this.
I'm repulsed by the idea of discussing this under this
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such
as removal from a position) retroactively is not fair,
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This
is a straightforward administrative
On 10/25/2012 11:47 AM, IESG Secretary wrote:
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. RFC 2026,
BCP 9, describes the purpose of I-Ds, and it also provides some policies
that govern the I-D Repository. RFC 2026 says:
During the development of a specification, draft
On 10/25/2012 12:34 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
_punitive_
Again, you are confused. This action is not about punishing an
individual, and I would be violently opposed to it if it were.
Removal from office _is_ considered a
Hi John,
At 08:03 25-10-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
(ii) The IESG could use its implied authority to interpret RFC
2026 (an authority it has at least implicitly applied many times
in the past). It could interpret the 2026 variance procedure as
applying to all bodies to which 2026 applies,
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such
as removal from a position) retroactively is not fair,
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This is a
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action
Sorry all, but my bogometer just blew out.
He isn't being turfed out of his post (in a high-level sense); he quit.
He simply wasn't polite or thoughtful enough to do so formally, instead of by
On 10/25/2012 1:26 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action
Noel, you have a very bad habit of replying to snippets out of context.
Personally I don't appreciate it, as the snippet above could lead
someone to believe
At 08:53 AM 10/25/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
Actually, that's my point here.
Once upon a time, we did everything by group hum. Then we became a standards
body with formal procedures and
At 03:46 AM 10/25/2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent,
On 10/25/12 12:56 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
To put a very specific point on this - in the real world, people get
shot, or are other wise hurt and end up in coma's and are otherwise
unable to fulfill the responsibilities of their office, and unless
and until they resign from office or are
At 05:08 PM 10/25/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
don't think that these are in any way analogous, since in each
case that you mentioned the individual who left was either incapacitated
or had pre-arranged an absence. If someone simply disappeared from
work without notice or comment I expect it would
The IAOC is seeking community input on a proposed Network Services Request for
Proposal. The
successful bidder(s) will have the opportunity to compete for delivering
network services at IETF meetings.
The IAOC has decided that it wants to issue a Network Services RFP during the
current
On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:03 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
(ii) The IESG could use its implied authority to interpret RFC
2026 (an authority it has at least implicitly applied many times
in the past). It could interpret the 2026 variance procedure as
applying to all bodies to
The Trustees of the IETF Trust took two actions today:
1. Removed the current IETF Trust Chair
2. Elected a new IETF Trust Chair
The Trustees passed the following resolution removing Marshal Eubanks as Trust
Chair:
RESOLUTION
After consideration of the lack of participation by the Trust Chair
Wo! There's a whole section of the conversation that ended up in Untidy that
shouldn't've.
On 9 Sep 2012, at 20:25, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I have to say that I'm baffled at the perverse pride that people seem
to take in being so technically backward that they're unable to handle
Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes:
Michael At 08:53 AM 10/25/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us)
can change any/all policy/procedures, right?
Michael Actually, that's my point here.
Michael Once
Does the resolve the issue, or only move Marshall from the role of Trust
Chair to Trustee?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The Trustees of the IETF Trust took two actions today:
1. Removed the current IETF Trust Chair
2. Elected a new IETF Trust Chair
The
On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:00 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
Does the resolve the issue, or only move Marshall from the role of Trust
Chair to Trustee?
The latter. Marshall is still a Trustee.
Ray
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The Trustees of the
On 25 Oct 2012, at 01:25, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Sabahattin Gucukoglu listse...@me.com wrote:
SG * text/paragraphs (or whatever), a completely different identity that
violates the length limits
SG Apple Mail and Microsoft use this text/paragraphs.
Do you
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:19:26PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an
extended period is inhibiting their activities.
This is the part which really confuses me. Why is this such an urgent
matter?
The stated reason in the IAOC
would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such
as removal from a position) retroactively is not fair,
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This
is a straightforward administrative problem. Turning this into an
opportunity to exercise a
Total of 253 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 26 00:53:04 EDT 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.51% | 19 | 8.44% | 159158 | i...@hixie.ch
5.93% | 15 | 4.78% |90220 |
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Test Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
Standards Track'
(draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-03.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group.
The IESG contact persons
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)'
(draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-10.txt) as Experimental RFC
This document is the product of the Low Extra Delay Background Transport
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6733
Title: Diameter Base Protocol
Author: V. Fajardo, Ed.,
J. Arkko,
J. Loughney,
G. Zorn, Ed.
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6734
Title: Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic
Key Transport
Author: G. Zorn, Q. Wu,
V. Cakulev
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6736
Title: Diameter Network Address and Port
Translation Control Application
Author: F. Brockners, S. Bhandari,
V. Singh, V. Fajardo
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6735
Title: Diameter Priority Attribute-Value Pairs
Author: K. Carlberg, Ed.,
T. Taylor
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6737
Title: The Diameter Capabilities Update Application
Author: K. Jiao, G. Zorn
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: October 2012
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6738
Title: Diameter IKEv2 SK: Using Shared
Keys to Support Interaction between IKEv2
Servers and Diameter Servers
Author: V. Cakulev,
The IEEE Registration Authority (IEEE RA) assigns Ethertypes with
oversight from the IEEE Registration Authority Committee (IEEE RAC).
(See http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/.) Some IETF
protocol specification make use of Ethertypes. All Ethertype requests
are subject to review
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. RFC 2026,
BCP 9, describes the purpose of I-Ds, and it also provides some policies
that govern the I-D Repository. RFC 2026 says:
During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
document are made available for
**Early Bird Registration Cutoff: Friday, 26 October 2012**
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.**
The IAOC is seeking community input on a proposed Network Services Request for
Proposal. The
successful bidder(s) will have the opportunity to compete for delivering
network services at IETF meetings.
The IAOC has decided that it wants to issue a Network Services RFP during the
current
The Trustees of the IETF Trust took two actions today:
1. Removed the current IETF Trust Chair
2. Elected a new IETF Trust Chair
The Trustees passed the following resolution removing Marshal Eubanks as Trust
Chair:
RESOLUTION
After consideration of the lack of participation by the Trust Chair
65 matches
Mail list logo
