RE: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

> All of which is why we should limit our attempts to do numerical analysis for > this topic, and worry far more about the basics, > including such things as interaction (in)sensitivities, group tone and style, > and observable misbehaviors, all of which are likely to produce biasing > results.

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On 4/28/2013 10:52 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: Except that the IESG members select the wg chairs, which makes your baseline stastistic suspect; it's too easy for all sorts of biasing factors to sway the allocation of wg chair positions. Mike actually mentioned that. Let's assume a simplified c

RE: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

> Except that the IESG members select the wg chairs, which makes your baseline > stastistic suspect; it's too easy for all sorts of biasing factors to sway the > allocation of wg chair positions. Mike actually mentioned that. Let's assume a simplified curriculum of participant -> author/editor -

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On 4/28/2013 9:05 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct question. Instead, consider "Why the diversity of the IETF leadership doesn't reflect the diversity of the set of the IETF WG chairs"? I believe this is a more representative can

Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

On 4/28/13, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Thank you for your thorough review. While I accept many of your > comments, I must say I disagree with you on a few points, which together > go to the core of our motivation in writing this document. Thank you for > helping me clarify these points to

Re: last call comments for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06

Hi - > From: "Michael Richardson" > To: "ietf" ; "Andrew McGregor" > Cc: "Christian Huitema" ; "SM" > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:47 AM > Subject: Re: last call comments for > draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06 ... > I think that non-contiguous ifindexes are a pain in the ass (base

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

At 08:53 PM 4/28/2013, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >The question that people are asking is why the diversity of the IETF >leadership doesn't reflect the diversity of _the IETF_. Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct question. Instead, consider "Why the diversity

What's a reasonable and non-discriminatory patent license?

The Patently-O blog has a new guest post by Jorge Contreras, who among other things is the IETF's lawyer, on a recent court decision about how to determine what's an appropriate RAND royalty rate for standard-essential patents. The patents and standards in question aren't from the IETF (they're IT

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On 04/29/2013 07:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. wrote: >> If we required the IETF to reflect the diversity of people who >> are, e.g., IT network professionals, then the IETF would fall apart >> for lack of ability. > […] >> If the ADs of the

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

Hi Tom, On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. wrote: > If we required the IETF to reflect the diversity of people who are, > e.g., IT network professionals, then the IETF would fall apart for lack > of ability. […] > If the ADs of the IETF have to represent the diversity of the world - > which could

Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

On 4/28/2013 8:03 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: Hi Dave, Thank you for your thorough review. While I accept many of your comments, I must say I disagree with you on a few points, which together go to the core of our motivation in writing this document. Thank you for helping me clarify these points to

Re: Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

Hi Dave, Thank you for your thorough review. While I accept many of your comments, I must say I disagree with you on a few points, which together go to the core of our motivation in writing this document. Thank you for helping me clarify these points to myself :-) - Our goal is much *less* ambit

RE: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

--On Sunday, April 28, 2013 12:22 +0100 Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi John, > > Seems consistent with what is in the I-D at the moment. See > section 3. > > Thus, those who want to record the info in the I-D can do > that, while those who want to go straight to a wiki can do > that (although we

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10

Martin, Thanks for the response. I am OK with your responses to the nits. As for the comment on location I think I understand but what got me thinking was the examples. In E.1 "An operator can configure a new interface by sending an containing: fastethernet-1/0 When t

RE: Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

Hi AB, Thanks for your review. > IMHO, we should not request to delete this proposed > section, but it can be shifted to the Appendix section when published. > Removing the section is like doing some work in IETF and then > destroying it, future reviewers/implementers may not know why it was > ac

RE: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

Hi John, Seems consistent with what is in the I-D at the moment. See section 3. Thus, those who want to record the info in the I-D can do that, while those who want to go straight to a wiki can do that (although we ask that the I-D has a pointer to the wiki). Cheers, Adrian > -Original Mes

RE: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

Hi Fred, I'm in complete agreement with you, but... :-) Before investing in a common set of tools to archive implementation information, I wanted to see whether there was *any* intention to make that information available. Thus, this is a baby-step towards the end result that you and I wold lik

Re: Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

Hi Thanks for your input, and I comment on your post that it is always important to listen to reviews, and try to understand reviewers (even if they may be stupid, or have wrong comments), any world/community editor or author should be careful to listen and understand to comments, to make their wo

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10 Revi