Happy New Year to all!
Many thanks to Yaakov for his excellent handling of the list discussion. I'm
not very surprised with the way it has gone. Déjà vu all over again :-)
The challenge is to focus the discussion to try to reach consensus on moving
forward with a process change, i.e., we need
> > Unless the IESG has changed the rules while I was not looking,
> > it has been permitted to post I-Ds in PDF in addition to ASCII
> > for some years.
> BUT the pdf is not allowed to be normative.
Right. The ASCII version is the only normative format. Furthermore,
all diagrams, no matter h
Thanks a lot Gene, for your persistence and follow-through!
You've done a real service for the IETF community. It is appreciated.
Regards,
Jerry
-Original Message-
From: Gene Gaines [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 7:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Vis
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-07.txt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Felix, Zhang
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Who can do me a faver to send me the latest version of
RFC2916
A crankback TLV is suggested in Section 4.3. While crankback is a desirable extension
to both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE (and required by ASON), the proposal ignores the prior work
done in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-04.txt. The
advantages of the proposed method shou
Adrian> I am saying that it sounds to me from the discussion that
Adrian> the ITU has not yet reached consent. It seemed to me that
Adrian> if the draft is intended to document the ITU preferences as
Adrian> informational, it would be as well to wait until the ITU has
Adrian> fully signed off. I
Also, I'm not sure it's a great approach for
vendors to decide which 'GMPLS extensions' to implement based on 2 versions of GMPLS
(IETF and ITU), and also based on what operators ask for (it still sounds like we're
getting 2 versions of GMPLS).
> Hope this answers yo
Parallel discussions on the thread 'IANA considerations for RSVP' (postings by Steve
Trowbridge and David Charlap) and this thread (Loa Andersson) have shed some light on
a) how extensions to GMPLS protocols to satisfy ASON requirements shifted from IETF to
ITU, and b) the consequences:
steve>
., 'where is the CCAMP charter update?' has been asked many times, but
there is no response, still pending).
Regards,
Jerry
> -Original Message-
> From: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:57 AM
> To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerr
of the ITU I believe.
Jerry
-Original Message-----
From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:58 PM
To: 'Zhi-Wei Lin'
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO; 'Adrian Farrel'
Subject: RE: new draft: GMPLS for ASON
Hi Zhi,
> I've uploaded a new draft cover
of the ITU I believe.
Jerry
-Original Message-----
From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:58 PM
To: 'Zhi-Wei Lin'
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO; 'Adrian Farrel'
Subject: RE: new draft: GMPLS for ASON
Hi Zhi,
> I've uploaded a new draft cover
IMO the major problem to be solved is IETF throughput, takes far too
long to produce RFCs, **years**, and getting worse. Unacceptably long
for users of the standards. IESG is a bottleneck, well known, stated in
RFC 3773 http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3774.txt?number=3774, Section 2.6.2
"Workload of the I
> When I step back and ask what leads to the best specifications (and
> indeed, documents in general), it is all rather simple:
>
> 1) produce a document.
> 2) get a small number of quality reviews.
> 3) revise in response to those reviews
> 4) ensure that reviewers in step 2 are satisfied by the
This is the nth time we've had this discussion RE ASCII art in IETF, but
without a process for process change, no change could be made even if we
all agreed, which we never do of course. While the discussion may be
enlightening and entertaining, in the end it does nothing but waste
cycles, there c
Hi All,
As a follow-up to our recent discussion, please review the draft at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-01.txt,
.pdf version available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-01.pdf.
We propose an experiment based on RFC 3933 allowing, in additio
Hi All,
Please see the updated draft "Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in
Addition to ASCII Text" at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-02.txt, .pdf
version available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-02.pdf.
The draft describes an RFC 3933
> As the author notes, there was
> indeed a replay
> of the usual
> discussion about RFC formats in winter 2006. The author
> says, "... the
> quite thoughtful,
> extended, and detailed discussion ... resulted in no change".
> There is a
> reason it did
> not result in change... there were
John,
> I continue to wonder whether what we should be doing here is not
> to invent a new normative document format, but to figure out how
> attach image-type figures to ASCII RFCs. "plates glued in the
> back" is almost exactly the same as the analogy I have been
> thinking about.
This is
John,
> > The advantage of using PDF is that we already use it, for both
> > drafts and RFCs, and have a lot of experience using it. For
> > most people it seems to work just fine. IMO PDF is our best
> > shot in IETF at solving the graphics and equations issues
> > raised in the draft.
> Good.
Hi Spencer,
Thanks a lot for the quick reply. Please see below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:52 AM
> To: ASH, GERALD R (JERRY), ATTLABS
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; General Area Review Team;
>
TECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; HAND, JAMES, ATTLABS; ASH, GERALD R
> (JERRY), ATTLABS; Mark Townsley; ext Cullen Jennings
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; General Area Review Team
> Subject: Gen-ART Last
21 matches
Mail list logo
