On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair
>> actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic.
>>
>
> I submitted draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduc
Hi Phillip,
At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair
actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic.
I submitted draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis During the
discussions (see thread at
http://www.ietf.org/
Sometimes there is a need for sarcasm.
I find it very rude when people begin by lecturing a Working Group on the
'fact' that nobody understands the subject matter. This is not the
exhibition of modesty etc. that it pretends to be, it is actually a trap
designed to gull the WG into agreeing that th
On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> I am *not* an author of this draft, which Michael Sweet
> produced on his own. I have not read the draft and have no
> idea whether I agree with it.
>
> (I believe this was an honest mistake on his part but I don't
> want there to be any
Hadriel said:
"I agree. My proposal for how/what/where to get more revenue (and not from
remote participants) was only in case we actually need it to pay for enhancing
remote participation. It's not clear we have such a need any time soon, but I
was only trying to provide an alternative model t
On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie wrote:
I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.
Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :)
See the message I just posted. Yes, the additional
I probably should have sent out this message over the weekend, but I was
hoping I would complete a bigger message soon. Since I'm still working
on that, a quick note to level set:
I have been reading all of the Last Call responses as they have come in.
I am in the process of reviewing the comm
Great. Thanks!
- Jouni
On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:40 PM, "Black, David" wrote:
> The -11 version of this draft addresses all of the nits and editorial comments
> noted in the Gen-ART review of the -10 version. It's ready for publication as
> an Informational RFC.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> ---
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.
Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :)
I am *not* an author of this draft, which Michael Sweet
produced on his own. I have not read the draft and have no
idea whether I agree with it.
(I believe this was an honest mistake on his part but I don't
want there to be any misunderstanding.)
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 28/08/2013 03:55, i
At 10:11 27-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is
not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is
speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they
said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not
Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art
> that a lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been
> simple repeats of points previously made, with no additional substance,
+1
Alas, that statement applies to both posts wh
SM
The past discussions on this took place a couple of years ago involving
primarily Cullen Jennings, Dale Worley and myself.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:20 AM Central Standard Time
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: J
On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for
> how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would
> be responsible for the substance.
I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not pra
On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of
> rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that
> we are discussing here.
That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude.
Managing the discussion is the ch
Hi Joe,
At 08:59 27-08-2013, Joe Abley wrote:
The consistent word for this in 1035 is simply "message". "DNS
Message" is in more common use today, I would say.
The text you quoted from 1035 is most usefully interpreted as a
contraction of "messages sent over UDP"; "UDP message" really
doesn't
Hi Mary,
At 07:28 27-08-2013, Mary Barnes wrote:
As far as the IPR, as the shepherd and DISPATCH WG co-chair, I
posted a note to the DISPATCH WG mailing list before progressing
this document to see if anyone had any concerns about the IPR
disclosures, which had been discussed in the past and we
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not
> listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to
> you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully
> contradicts your own
Thanks, David!
On Aug 27, 2013, at 11:40 AM, "Black, David" wrote:
> The -11 version of this draft addresses all of the nits and editorial comments
> noted in the Gen-ART review of the -10 version. It's ready for publication as
> an Informational RFC.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> -Original
FWIW, if we are going to go down that road, it would be worth noting that there
are various kinds of rudeness that can occur on IETF mailing lists. To my
mind, the most harmful of these is not outright rudeness. Outright rudeness
is to be avoided, certainly.
But the most rude behavior that
The -11 version of this draft addresses all of the nits and editorial comments
noted in the Gen-ART review of the -10 version. It's ready for publication as
an Informational RFC.
Thanks,
--David
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August
On 2013-08-26, at 22:28, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> The permitted size of the UDP packet is NOT 512 octets. That is the
>> permitted size of the DNS Message. DNS Message is not the same thing as a
>> UDP packet.
>
Per RFC1035
Section 2.3.4. Size limits
UDP messages512 octets o
SM,
As far as the IPR, as the shepherd and DISPATCH WG co-chair, I posted a
note to the DISPATCH WG mailing list before progressing this document to
see if anyone had any concerns about the IPR disclosures, which had been
discussed in the past and were updated when I asked the authors the
requisit
I'm I was traveling and not having access to email
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Tim Chown
Responder a:
Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 06:51
Para: ietf
Asunto: Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
>Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappro
As Seargeant-at-arms, this is my first and last warning.
If this goes on, I will ask the secretariat to avoid further postings.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Abdussalam Baryun
Responder a:
Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 05:50
Para:
CC: ietf
Asunto: Re: Rude response
Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 26.08.2013
As per the IESG request for review dated 19.08.2013
I support the draft, thanks, below are my comments,
Overall> The draft is about 3GPP Mobile Devices but the draft has no
normative reference to such device. The t
Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour
on this list?
Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago...
Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other
posters, whether new or veteran.
Tim
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM, wrote:
> > I experienced rude respondings in IETF list
>
> That would be when you tried to get April 1 RFCs discontinued.
>
No, I experienced rude response from some participants including you, and
regarding yours I received a private email from one director that
28 matches
Mail list logo
