Hi Mary,
At 20:02 25-02-2013, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] You can find quite a few articles that discuss how many people
follow a healthy lifestyle - exercise, eat their veggies, don't smoke,
etc. and that's about 10% if the population (there are US and European
studies). In is extremely common fo
Could you give your summary experience of implementing DFF and which
network was it deployed/tested in and the summary result? I think this
information will help other users and also the IESG to make future
decisions :-)
AB
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen <
i...@thomasclaus
On 26 févr. 2013, at 12:29, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> Could you give your summary experience of implementing DFF and which network
> was it deployed/tested in and the summary result? I think this information
> will help other users and also the IESG to make future decisions :-)
Well, it was
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen <
i...@thomasclausen.org> wrote:
> On 26 févr. 2013, at 12:29, Abdussalam Baryun
> wrote:
>
> Could you give your summary experience of implementing DFF and which
> network was it deployed/tested in and the summary result? I think this
> info
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
> In Section 5:
>
>"For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant
> information can be gathered from attendees that have previously
> visited the city."
>
> There are recurrent discussion
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:42 AM, George, Wes wrote:
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
>
>> In Section 5:
>>
>>"For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant
>> information can be gathered from attendees that have previously
> From: James Polk
>
> >It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
>
> It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
> adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
> have talked to the Secretariat before (and recently), and verified
> this is inde
--On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 09:09 -0600 Mary Barnes
wrote:
>> [WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be
>> appropriate - having this draft explicitly recommend use of a
>> wiki or other semi-permanent method to store and share
>> information collaboratively about specific locations
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> From: James Polk
>>
>>> It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
>>
>> It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
>> adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
>> have talked to the Secr
On 2/26/13 10:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> Requires a Unix like system...
I find these Linux-isms to be an abomination (remember when Unix
users used to know how to use Unix? Seems like ages and ages ago).
I use timeanddate.com quite a bit, myself. It's got some handy
calculators.
Melinda
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk
Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Requires a Unix l
> "Mary" == Mary Barnes writes:
>>> In Section 5:
>>>
>>> "For cases of first time attendees for a specific location,
>>> relevant information can be gathered from attendees that have
>>> previously visited the city."
>>> There are recurrent discussions as nobody vol
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk
Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 2
On Feb 26, 2013 2:24 PM, "joel jaeggli" wrote:
> Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
for the reader...
Simple. Go to the UK, ensure it's winter, and ask a policeman.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>>>
> From: James Polk
>
> Personally, I'd trust
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James P
joel jaeggli wrote:
> Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > Dale R. Worley wrote:
> >
> >>> From: James Polk
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random person.
> >>> Even better:
> >>>
> >>> $ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
> >>> Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
> >>>
At 01:01 PM 2/26/2013, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> From: James Polk
>
> >It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
>
> It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
> adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
> have talked to the Secretariat before (
On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2013 2:24 PM, "joel jaeggli" wrote:
> > Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
> > for the reader...
>
> Simple. Go to the UK, ensure it's winter, and ask a policeman.
Er, I see a bootstrappi
Hi Martin,
--On February 26, 2013 at 9:28:23 PM +0100 Martin Rex wrote:
Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
for the reader...
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
Dale,
> Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random person.
> Even better:
>
> $ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
> Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
> $
Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:
> All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
That one is weird, no doubt about it, but ultimately
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think "24:00" is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte
piece
On 2/26/13 2:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Dale,
Personally, I'd trust "date -u" much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:
All Final Version (-
I think the problem is that if they said 0:00, it would be on Tuesday, February
26th, not Monday, February 25th, and people would submit a day late...
Margaret
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>> Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
On 2/26/13 1:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to "informally distribute" updates directly
on the
list, and cuts off access to work
Joes,
> Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
>
> It just forces authors to "informally distribute" updates directly on
> the list, and cuts off access to work that doesn't need to happen in
> sync with an IETF meeting.
I agree with your point to a large extent, but I'm sure
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated tool
that blocks submissi
On 2/26/13 1:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> On the one hand, having a cut-off time could help WG chairs make a decision
> as to whether to entertain a discussion on a draft. On the other hand,
> having no cut-off date might mean that drafts are submitted extremely late
> and it makes it more challe
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
keep all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 2/26/13 1:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
> I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we keep
> all of the versions anyway.
> It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
> development process rather than helpful for it.
Um, maybe.
A
For that to help, one must also assert that the people who would read the
changes two weeks before the meeting wouldn't read the changes the night
before the meeting, and that they'll remember whatever it is they need to
remember to be a useful active participant.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:59
On 26/02/2013 22:59, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk
> procrastinating and actually *submit*.
+1
lots of people - including me - are almost entirely event driven (no pun
intended).
Nick
On 27/02/2013, at 9:59 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
>> keep all of the versions anyway.
>> It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
>> d
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:16:30 AM Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I think that's a poor trade-off. As discussed before, the publishing embargo
> disrupts work that isn't in sync with meetings. This is a tangible and
> somewhat high price to pay just to serve as a procrastination-buster for
> tho
>I'd be willing to deal with an embargo for draft-ietf-*, but don't see at all
>why it extends
>to other drafts.
We have software. Embargo drafts for WGs that are actually meeting
during the preceding week, leave the others alone.
> From: m...@sap.com (Martin Rex)
> I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
> IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
> in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
> local time zone *anywhere*.
>
> I would appreciate if the loc
On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. Th
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 07:35:35 PM Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick
wrote:
> >> But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > The deadline originated because the sec
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:31:12PM -0900, Melinda Shore wrote:
> it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
> think "24:00" is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
> wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte
> piece of software.
I don't think so. ISO (ISO 8601) seems to think
In message <20130227054857.gd7...@mx1.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:31:12PM -0900, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
> > think "24:00" is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
> > wondering if they're trying to work around
I'm doing a lot of work in regards to, creating working code, benchmarking,
testing, writing specs and prose, writing emails, wash, rinse, repeat, and
yes, the deadline is interfering with the publishing of the work-product of
all of that and likely the progress of the group.
... and what is the b
41 matches
Mail list logo
