Hi,
The link in RFC3315 is actually incorrect -- it should have been
http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers, without the file extension,
and there's an erratum about this. HTML was generally (if not exclusively)
reserved for files that needed to include links to registration forms .
I found the process in the 6tsch BoF (Tue 1520) for asking about taking on the
work discussed in the BoF to be thought-provoking.
Toward the end of the BoF, the chairs asked the question "1. Is this a topic
that the IETF should address?" First, the chairs asked for a hum. From my
vantage poi
Dear all,
the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room) of the
TECH PLENARY WG session at IETF 87 is available at the following URL:
http://ietf87.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#TECH_PLENARY
For the chair(s): please feel free to put the link to the recordi
Dear all,
the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room) of the
ADMIN PLENARY WG session at IETF 87 is available at the following URL:
http://ietf87.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#ADMIN_PLENARY
For the chair(s): please feel free to put the link to the recor
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not.
Andy
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> I fou
Noel Chiappa writes:
>> From: Joe Touch
>> "what people want" (ISP operators, or at least some of them), was an
>> artificial way to differentiate home customers from commercial
>> providers.
>> I.e., they wanted to create a differentiation that wasn't part of the
>> Internet architecture, so they
On 8/1/13 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
> The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
> The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not.
Consensus for any
On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM 8/1/13, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
> The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
The repeatable test gives *an* answer, but i
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM 8/1/13, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
>> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
>> The sum of all hands raised is comparable
we have never voted at IETFs.
"we believe in rough consensus and running code"
/bill
On 1August2013Thursday, at 2:14, A ndy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
> The sum of all ha
On 2013-08-01, at 12:04, manning bill wrote:
> we have never voted at IETFs.
> "we believe in rough consensus and running code"
The enduring tautology in this is the use of the word "we".
"some of us believe in rough consensus and running code, probably enough that
the mantra is worth repeati
Hi Ralph,
At 01:50 01-08-2013, Ralph Droms wrote:
Toward the end of the BoF, the chairs asked the question "1. Is this
a topic that the IETF should address?" First, the chairs asked for
a hum. From my vantage point (middle of the room), the hum was
pretty close to equal, for/against. I revie
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:04 AM, manning bill wrote:
> we have never voted at IETFs.
> "we believe in rough consensus and running code"
>
We are not voting.
We are expressing agreement with a specific assertion.
That is true whether the agreement is expressed via vocalization
or motion of limbs.
On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
> The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
> The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not.
Hums
See draft-resnick-on-consensus for the art of running a group using hums
and other tools. With those nuances, I like hums.
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> That's true, but cool URIs don't change:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
Even cooler would have been URN's (e.g. urn:ietf:enterprise-numbers),
which was designed specifically as a persistent handle to information
(ref: ht
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/1/13 2:01 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
> wrote:
>>
>> That's true, but cool URIs don't change:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
>
> Even cooler would have been URN's (e.g.
> urn:ietf:e
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
>> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
>> The sum of all hands raised is comparable across te
On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
>>> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or
We actually had a talk about this amongst several IESG and former IESG members.
I am not going to report the results, because I might remember them wrong,
but my thoughts on this are as follows:
- The hum is not a means of determining consensus; it is a means of determining
the sense of the r
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Leinen wrote:
> Noel Chiappa writes:
> > But in any event, it's doesn't void my point: if people want
> > something, we have two choices: i) blow people off, and they'll adopt
> > some point solution that interacts poorly with everything else, or ii)
> > give
Ralph, et al,
Perhaps I have missed relevant responses, but it appears that folk are
missing what is significant here:
On 8/1/2013 10:50 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
In particular, the effect of humming versus
show of hands was pretty obvious.
The fact that the results were so profoundly differ
> We are not voting.
> We are expressing agreement with a specific assertion.
> That is true whether the agreement is expressed via vocalization
> or motion of limbs.
Absolutely so.
> The chairs can pick however they want to measure agreement.
> Many chairs ask for a show of hands. I prefer that
On 8/1/13 1:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Consensus for any particular outcome is in the end a judgment call.
Well, yes and no, but this situation strikes me as odd, and probably
a mistake on the part of the chairs. If you can't tell whether or
not you've got consensus, you don't have consensus.
On 8/1/2013 2:16 AM, Simon Leinen wrote:
>For the first couple of years that I had an ISP connection (which soon
>had an early NAT box on it), whenever I called up the ISP (then, and
>still, one of the largest in the US) with a service call, the first
>thing I had to do was unplug the NAT box a
> Hi,
> The link in RFC3315 is actually incorrect -- it should have been
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers, without the file
> extension, and there's an erratum about this. HTML was generally (if not
> exclusively) reserved for files that needed to include links to registrati
> From: Simon Leinen
> In the eyes of your ISP, you were misbehaving, because you were
> violating their assumption that you would use ONE (1) computer with that
> connection. If you had been what they consider an honest citizen, you
> would have gotten a "commercial" connect
Hi Andy,
At 09:26 01-08-2013, Andy Bierman wrote:
I meant that it is difficult to remain anonymous when the
email to the WG has your email address in it.
Agreed.
Perhaps you can point me to the RFC 2026 text (or other RFC)
that says something about protecting the disclosure of the identity
of
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 01:10 -0700, Amanda Baber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The link in RFC3315 is actually incorrect -- it should have been
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers, without the file
> extension, and there's an erratum about this. HTML was generally (if
> not exclusively) reserve
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> ISP business model.
So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to kill
NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral part of ISPs'
master pla
On 02/08/2013 01:30, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
>>> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
>>> The
Hi,
Re the Trust's plenary slides (I was not in Berlin):
I have an allergy to modifying the Trust Agreement unless there's an
overwhelming reason to do so. It was a very hard-won piece of text.
> Issue #1
> We have recently been asked permission to
> republish the TAO with a creative commons
> l
In message <20130801191438.c027718c...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, Noel Chiappa write
s:
> > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>
> > The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> > ISP business model.
>
> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs want
On 8/1/13 12:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> In the case of a WG-forming BOF, it seems to me that a nucleus
> of people willing and competent to do the work, and a good set of
> arguments why the work needs to be done and how it will make the
> Internet better, are more important than any kind of
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>
> > The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> > ISP business model.
>
> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to
> kill
> NAT, and I have ot
FWIW, I share Brian's concern and reasoning about these
questions (and his allergy). I might have a lower threshold of
necessity as a requirement for changing the agreement, but I'm
not convinced -- from either the slide or what I could hear of
the audio-- that it is necessary.
john
--On Fr
draft-bormann-cbor-04 adds text about handling maps with multiple identical
keys., but it is contradictory. Section 3.4. "Specifying Keys for Maps" says:
A CBOR-based protocol should make an intentional decision about what
to do when a receiving application sees multiple identical keys in a
Total of 222 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 2 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.95% | 11 | 7.45% | 129461 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
5.41% | 12 | 6.26% | 108812 | mo...@
On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>
>> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
>> ISP business model.
>
> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to kill
> NAT, and I have other people telling
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>>> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>>
>>> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
>>> ISP business model.
>>
>> So this is
On 8/1/13 6:25 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 8/1/13 1:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> Consensus for any particular outcome is in the end a judgment call.
> Well, yes and no, but this situation strikes me as odd, and probably
> a mistake on the part of the chairs. If you can't tell whether or
> not y
41 matches
Mail list logo
