Re: 6tsch BoF

> What did you think of Pete Resnick's draft about hums. i like it a lot and have used it in other fora which are somewhat loose or confused about consensus. randy

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On 8/4/13 4:41 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:25 PM, John C Klensin > wrote: > >> First, probably to the "when meetings begin" part, but noting that >> someone who gets onto the audio a few minutes late is in exactly >> the same situation as someone who walks into the meeting

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I don't want to promise too much, but in time for Vancouver I'll > probably finish some code that sends you all sorts of helpful > information when you join the jabber room. There is a standardized "room > subject" message but not all IM c

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On 08/05/2013 10:07 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > One such hoop might be acknowledging the (privately sent) Note Well message > (thus equating XEP-0045 Participant with IETF Participant to some degree). > Another might be that we tell them to go away if their XEP-0054 vCard > doesn't include suffici

Re: procedural question with remote participation

At 13:10 04-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the slides 1 week in advance? One generation's bad behavior becomes the next generation's best practice. It would be appreciated if those slides could be made available in advance. Yo

Re: procedural question with remote participation

> Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in the IETF). I'm told that it's easier for non-native English speakers to read slides than to pa

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote: > Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more > challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly > quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in > the IETF). I'm told that it's easier for non-

Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues

On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Chris Griffiths wrote: > IETF Community, > > The IETF Trust Trustees would like feedback from the community on several > issues: > - We have received requests that we cannot accommodate and have > consulted legal counsel to review our options > - The tr

Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation

On Monday, August 5, 2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote: > On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote: > >> >> > Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more > >> challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly > >> quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > I hope folks who invest effort in tooling try to make it all > easier and not harder. Right now we don't have good tools that > allow remote folks to easily provide "live" input (and maybe > that's just because its a hard problem). So I'd say

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote: > Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous > jabber participant (named "Guest") did remotely speak multiple times at the > mic on one of the RAI working group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I > recall). I

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote: >> Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous >> jabber participant (named "Guest") did remotely speak multiple times at the >> mic on one of the RAI working group s

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On 08/05/13 07:51, Yoav Nir allegedly wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > >> On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote: >>> Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous >>> jabber participant (named "Guest") did remotely speak multiple

Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)

I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications. I don't think majority in IETF think it is meaningless so that is why I want to clarify the meaning and discuss what most may not want to discuss. If t

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:26 AM, SM wrote: > At 13:10 04-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >> You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't >> normative. Even > > I do not have the agenda two weeks in advance. Huh. Sounds like a WG Chair problem. I believe draft agendas are

Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)

If one or two people are doing most of the posting to a list, that means something is out of balance. Summary statistics can be used as an indicator that something should be done to encourage diversity, or get people back on topic, etc.

Gen-ART IETF LC review of draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-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-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instance

Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)

On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into > the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications. It's just a weekly posting summary of raw stats - it's not a ranking system, popularity

Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues

On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: >> Does the community feel these are reasonable reasons to update the trust >> agreement? > > The answer to that question is: yes. It seems reasonable to open up the > agreement in order to fulfill its purpose in reasonable, effective, and > pr

Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues

+1 Tobias Gondrom Paul Hoffman wrote: >On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > >>> Does the community feel these are reasonable reasons to update the >trust agreement? >> >> The answer to that question is: yes. It seems reasonable to open up >the agreement in order to fulfill its pu

Re: procedural question with remote participation

Spencer Dawkins quoted Hadiel really poorly, which confused me as you who said this, but I think it was Hadriel now: > OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the > slides 1 week in advance? 1) As a WG chair, I'd like to see the slides from a (new) presenter in

Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement

--On Saturday, August 03, 2013 06:50 -0500 Jorge Contreras wrote: > Please see below for some specific responses to Brian's > concerns. >... Jorge, Given this explanation, I'm ok with seeing a specific proposal. I think that proposal should reflect a minimum change model. As far as CC is con

Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement

On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:29 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > As > far as CC is concerned, I'm not persuaded that it meets out need > but not persuaded that it would cause great harm for > non-standards documents either. At the risk of opening up the paint cabinet inside the bike shed: what do you think

Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues

On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Chris Griffiths wrote: > >> IETF Community, >> >> The IETF Trust Trustees would like feedback from the community on several >> issues: >> - We have received requests that we cannot accommodate and have >>

Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement

> From: Brian E Carpenter > Thanks for the careful explanations. I'll second that; it does seem that some tweaking may be in order. > Clearly the Trust shouldn't have blanket permission to abandon or > dispose of assets When the time comes to draft actual wording, I would sugge

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:31 + Ted Lemon wrote: > If you came to the IETF and were working for company X, > registered pseudonymously, and didn't disclose IPR belonging > to you or company X, and then later company X sued someone for > using their IPR, you and company X would get rake

Re: Last Call: (Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol) to Proposed Standard

Hi SM, thanks for your comments. I'm shepherding the document, so replies inline: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM, SM wrote: > According to Section 1, the Registration Data Access Protocol is a Lookup > Format, > JSON Responses and HTTP usage. This looks like a weird protocol to me. > If the

Re: procedural question with remote participation

Hi. I seem to have missed a lot of traffic since getting a few responses yesterday. I think the reasons why slides should be available well in advance of the meeting have been covered well by others. And, as others have suggested, I'm willing to see updates to those slides if things change in th

Re: procedural question with remote participation

At 12:38 PM 8/5/2013, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. I seem to have missed a lot of traffic since getting a few responses yesterday. I think the reasons why slides should be available well in advance of the meeting have been covered well by others. And, as others have suggested, I'm willing to see

Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement

On 06/08/2013 03:11, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Brian E Carpenter > > > Thanks for the careful explanations. > > I'll second that; it does seem that some tweaking may be in order. > > > Clearly the Trust shouldn't have blanket permission to abandon or > > dispose of assets >

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On 08/05/2013 12:31 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > but at least one anonymous jabber participant (named "Guest") did > remotely speak multiple times at the mic on one of the RAI working > group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I recall). I was > personally ok with it, but it was awkward. Ah.

Re: procedural question with remote participation

--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 02:06 +0100 Stephen Farrell wrote: >... > On 08/05/2013 06:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> The reasons to discourage anonymity aren't just "patent >> nonsense" (although that should be sufficient and I rather >> like the pun). > > Thanks. The pun was accidental

Re: procedural question with remote participation

On Aug 4, 2013, at 2:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > I also note that the 1 week cutoff that Michael suggests would, > in most cases, eliminate "had no choice without impeding WG > progress" as an excuse. A week in advance of the meeting, there > should be time, if necessary to find someone else