At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent
the organizations of which they are chairs.
As a practical matter any organization that tries to do things with other
organizations needs to have some party that can act on its behalf. That is
why Ambassadors are necessary.
The current constitution of the IETF means that the chairs of the IAB and
the IETF have very limited authority to
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
I have argued for junking the DARPA constitution for years. It was
designed to keep power in the hands of the few while the rest of the
organization didn't worry their pretty heads about it.
Factually incorrect in a number of ways.
On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:49 PM, Cullen Jennings flu...@iii.ca wrote:
If this argument were correct, we'd expect to see major O.S. vendors
supporting the NTP option, but we don't—instead, it's something that can be
configured in the UI for situations like the one you describe, and that
First off, we like to be in a situation where past IETF discussion, consensus,
RFCs, and current work program guide what the leaders say. I think this was
largely the case with the Montevideo statement as well. Of course these are
judgment calls. Please send us feedback - I for instance talk in
Leaders were processed thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust
them. And that they hold through the spirit of being an IETF and shall be
responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
BR,
Medel
GOOGLE IS IPv6 COMPLIANT !
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
Hi,
I think this is an excellent draft and have already sent a pointer of it to
colleagues in other organizations as stuff to consider.
And although it has been eons since I chaired anything in the IETF, it
perfectly matches my recollection of what humming and rough consensus was all
about.
On 10/8/2013 11:34 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a
part of a meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other
Internet organisations.
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
Folks,
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where
possible, indicate
that consensus has been reached (or not).when leaders speak out on behalf
of organization
-particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of
the group at large,
they have
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
That is not good for the IETF and it reflects that we are not ready for
the dynamics of the Internet that we created.
.as
On 10/10/13 3:49 PM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate
On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote:
At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to
On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and
where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).
when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly-
this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the
Dave:
On IANA:
Further, I believe there is no IETF context
RFC 6020 and
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf
Jari
On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Medel v6 Ramirez mgrami...@globe.com.ph wrote:
Leaders were processed thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust
them. And that they hold through the spirit of being an IETF and shall be
responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
I don't
Hello,
On 10/10/13 4:30 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and
where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).
when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly-
this
On 10/11/2013 7:31 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Dave:
On IANA:
Further, I believe there is no IETF context
RFC 6020 and
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf
Jari,
The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather
obscure document that came
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's
model of his job was
On 10/10/13 10:52 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's
model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense
you seem to be
Hi Jari,
Here's is a draft about improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to
attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF. The
draft builds upon the ISOC work, proposing adjustments and additional
efforts, with the goal of enabling more sustained and active
participation by
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in,
e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his
job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you
seem to be thinking
I like your approach and comments, and I think that our ietf leaders are
not always leaders but in IESG they are the managers. Mostly ietf ruled by
community consensus not presidents, so we have many leaders including you
and some others may be additional leaders for the community. The ietf wants
On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era,
To have a leader there must be followers. Ergo there are no IETF leader
statements.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Because we've got more than 120 working groups, thousands of
participants, and the internet is now part of the world's
communications infrastructure. I don't like hierarchy but
I don't know how to scale up the organization without it.
There are
On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Chris,
I have become confused between the permission necessary to republish the Tao,
and the request to republish under a Creative Commons license.
Can I try to clarify.
Do we or do we not grant permission for
On Oct 10, 2013, at 1:52 PM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in,
On 10/7/2013 10:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The abstract says:
The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work
through a consensus process, taking into account the different views
among IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on
technical matters. In particular,
As I noted in my review of the draft, the document has a core flaw in
its sense of history. It has invented an interpretation of rough
consensus that was not part of its original formulation.
I consider the current focus on reconciling minority views to be quite an
excellent enhancement
FWIW, on the issue of Informational RFCs seen as cast in stone:
I think I've seen that problem occasionally. I.e. people assigning a far too
high value to a document, just because it is an RFC. The world changes, our
understanding changes, and as Dave pointed out processes evolve… RFCs need to
Hi Medel,
At 19:11 09-10-2013, Medel v6 Ramirez wrote:
Leaders were processed thoroughly prior to their appointment so I
trust them. And that they hold through the spirit of being an IETF
and shall be responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
There was a Recall petition last
Dave,
The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather obscure
document that came from the IAB and not the broader IETF, demonstrates my
point that we lacked meaningful context
You asked for context and I provided a context. We can certainly debate how
meaningful it is.
True, it was mostly a reaction to the IETF's tendency to over-proceduralize
everything, and an inclination to voting. The main issue I have been
concerned with since then, and something this draft helps with, is
redefinition of rough consensus to manipulate WG outcomes. WGs need to
get beyond the
Finally back to this original review.
On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
In terms of philosophy and desirable practice, the draft
discusses an extremely appealing model and generally explains its
nature and practice well. However the draft tends to confuse what is
(or has been)
A small comment in-line.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/7/2013 10:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The abstract says:
The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work
through a consensus process, taking into account the different views
Just to clarify, I am no saying that today we are leaderless. In fact I
think we have a very good leadership.
What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only
moderate discussion we are in a big problem.
Regards,
as
On 10/10/13 4:52 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only
moderate discussion we are in a big problem.
we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of
lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this.
i'm surprised that we are not overwhelmed with
On 10/8/13 8:56 AM, t.p. wrote:
1) It does not state its target audience until, perhaps, the reference
in the Conclusions, to WG Chairs. [...] Are
ADs assumed to be above and beyond the considerations in this I-D:-(
An excellent point. No, *every* consensus caller in the IETF should in
On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
I think it misses two
important points that should be addressed prior to publication:
1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and
gauging consensus
Yeah, as I just replied to Tom, I think this is worth adding, probably
in section 2
The IESG has received a request to update the IANA registration of
the text/csv media type, adding an optional fragment identifier.
The request comes from a document in the Independent stream, and the
IESG is the change controller for the text/csv media type.
The IESG plans to make a decision in
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7034
Title: HTTP Header Field X-Frame-Options
Author: D. Ross, T. Gondrom
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date: October 2013
REMINDER - the reservation cutoff date at the Fairmont Hotel (overflow) is
Monday, 14 October, it has been extended from 11 October! The cutoff date at
the Hyatt is 20 October 2013.
88th IETF Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada
November 3-8, 2013
Host: Huawei
Meeting venue: Hyatt Regency Vancouver:
The Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions (pppext) Working Group in the
Internet Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman
and Ted Lemon.
The mailing list will remain open.
The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy
networks WG (roll) to consider the following document:
- 'Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)'
draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next
43 matches
Mail list logo
