it (even for pagination or some such) I would
recommend doing the check. For MIB modules that
should be pretty easy, simple and not cause much
extra work. Of course the MIB module needs to be
checked (SYNTAX that is) BEFORE it gets submitted
to AD/IESG even.
Bert
On 8/17/13 2:09 PM, Jeffrey
. So tough
to challenge them based on only nominees statements.
Bert Wijnen
On 3/6/13 2:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at
the set of nominees and consider what you know about
+1
On 11/29/12 7:11 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
So, the 'tools version' with all the wonderful spiffy links to helpful
things (the materials, the etherpad, the ...) and the spiffy
highlighting ability (Dark Red! I love dark red!) has been very stable
and highly useful for quite a while now. But
it is not asking just a /16 but also asking for reservation of a /12.
Pretty big space.
And in the list of reasons, I mainly read that it is sufficiently large,
but not much about why it needs to be this big. Why would a smaller
allocation not be sufficient?
Bert
the WG felt))
could elaborate or summarize the discussions that lead
to the conclusion that this amount of space is needed
and makes sense.
Pointers to the WG mlist discussions where the pros
and cons of various prefixes sizes are discussed or
summarize would also be welcome.
Bert
On 11/15/12 3:46 PM
-effects
I figured that some of you might find this interesting.
Bert
Thanks for extra info.
You can add me to the list who sign the request for recall.
Bert
--On Saturday, 03 November, 2012 11:36 -0400 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
John:
I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the
recall option? If not, please be very clear about
tglassey wrote:
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended
recipient.
Oh.. better safe than sorry then poof
/emileaben/ripe-atlas-superstorm-sandy
Bert
I support that IETF and IAB chairs sign this document.
Bert
- Original Message -
From: IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org
To: IETF-Announce ietf-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: IAB i...@iab.org; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:19 PM
Subject: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
and not a detailed review
Bert
Original Message
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: Last Call:
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-05.txt(Multiprotocol Label
Switching
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)MIB-based Management Overview) to Informational RFC
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:03:47
everything seems incorrect to me.
Bert
Tom Petch
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I LOVE this one.
Bert
On 7/20/11 8:23 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi
Very appropriate for XKCD to post this just a few days before an IETF
meeting.
http://www.xkcd.com/927/
(For those who are not familiar with XKCD, don't miss the alt-text on the
picture)
Yoav
On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:28 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I am increasingly seeing IETF participants posting messages to IETF
mailing lists, sending messages to chairs and ADs, and so on, where
their messages include confidentiality/security/legal notices at the
bottom.
The first ones have shown
I have a Business service from my ISP too. They told me that somewhere in
2012 they would look into IPv6.
So I have threatened to move to another provider. But we do not have much
choice in NL at the moment
I believe. Although I have to re-checked recently.
Bert
On 6/10/11 3:04 PM, Thomas
their IAOC and/or IETF Trust responsibilities to other
persons. ...
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Revision 9 is out and tried to address IETF LC comments
Here is the diff between the rev you reviewed and the latest one:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07url2=draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09
Bert
document shepherd
On 2/8/11 3:05 AM, Tina Tsou wrote:
I have
/such a SIP/such as SIP/
Bert Wijnen
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Bert on the other hand has clearly been taking advantage of us for
years, we should put a stop to that :-)
The Secret Working Group has ways to sneak me into your meetings, which
includes bribes, corruption, intimidation, backdoors
Although I do sort of also agree with Scott, I think it is one step in the right
direction. So please seen a sponsor and get it published.
Bert
On 10/26/10 4:48 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this
proposal or dropping it
I do
about which there's an obvious and clear
conflict of interest, it is this.
But be fair: they are doing an IETF Last Call BEFORE they decide on the
statement.
Is that not how you try to determine consensus within the whole IETF?
Bert
___
Ietf
+1
Bert
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully
Stephen,
I think it is your first bullet point. We have not standardize it yet.
And so it is implementation dependent as to what authorization is used.
Bert
Stephen Hanna wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for responding to my comments. Allow me to respond.
You wrote:
As a participant in netconf, I
module published as RFC .
Bert Wijnen
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I sort of wonder if the Counter32 is the proper datatype for some
of the counters. They sound more like ZeroBasedCounter32 to me.
Further I do not see any text regarding possible discontinuities.
Bert Wijnen
- Original Message -
From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF-Announce [EMAIL
over the last 4-5 days. I am still
discussion a few other changes (mainly with IESG) before this one will
go online.
Bert
- Original Message -
From: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed
with explicit inline comments such as those
described above.
From the discussion on the list (that I have seen), people seem to
be OK with that text. It is quite a bit longer, but so be it.
Does anyone have objections to the above text as replacement for
the current text?
Bert
Editor
) as
part of my current editing cycle of ID-Checklist.
Bert
Editor for ID_Checklist.
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Hi,
things I'd like
that isn't obviously a bug,
the author, shepherd, AD or reviewer will have to enter think
mode or even negotiate mode. I agree that it's a good idea
to be clear about that.
Brian
I am checking with the IESG if they also agree with that
Bert
Editor for the ID_Checklist
inline
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
W.r.t.
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
... snip a lot ..
Specific IPR (e.g
. That also means I may sleep late tomorrow
morning ;-)
Bert
- Original Message -
From: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pete Resnick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; IESG
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10
.txt
Bert
Editor of ID-Checklist
Frank
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ID-Checklist accordingly.
Bert
Editor of ID-Checklist
- Original Message -
From: Bill McQuillan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Re: Call for review of proposed
on a massige reorg and as a result
probably a long discussion and wordtsmitting effort.
If Russ (or the IESG) tells me that they DO want a complete re-org I will
re-consider. But that was/is not the task I was asked to do (I believe).
I hope you understand
Bert
Editor of the ID_Checklist.
- Original
3.1, The shepherd (often WG chair) is asked to confirm that he did check
the document to meet the ID-Checklist (see question 1.g on page 6).
And that SAVES a lot of time on already overloaded ADs/IESG
and also SAVES real dollars in the RFC-Editor cycle.
Bert
Editor for ID_Checklist
have changed the fuirst sentence of sect 1.
from
All Internet Drafts which are offered for publication as RFCs
into
All Internet Drafts which are offered to an AD or the IESG with a
request
for publication as RFC
I hope that clarifies.
Bert
Editor for ID_checklist
- Original
Oops, used wrong from address
- Original Message -
From: Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Pete
Again
Oops, used wrong from address
- Original Message -
From: Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Pete,
I am not sure
,
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pete
Resnick
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 juli 2008 21:28
Aan: ietf@ietf.org
CC: IETF Chair; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
The document says
Inline
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: maandag 28 april 2008 12:18
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: RE: OPS-DIR review for: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-03
Thanks. Looks good to me.
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: maandag 28 april 2008 14:07
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: RE: OPS-DIR review for: draft-ietf-mpls
Forwarding to IETF wide list and authors/editors
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Bert Wijnen - IETF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: donderdag 24 april 2008 13:55
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: OPS-DIR review for: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-03.txt
I reveied
+1
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mehmet Ersue
Verzonden: woensdag 23 april 2008 17:30
Aan: Andy Bierman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Onderwerp: RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Another +1
propose, then we will consume again more
cycles of IESG/IAB and the IETF at large, because they will have
to look once more at the WG rechartering in 3 months time.
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric
Rescorla
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april
in IETF on teh question of forming a WG or not.
Bert
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
and with become
silent and leave your opion as one input to the IESG for
their decision making process.
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric
Rescorla
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14
Aan: David Partain
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Well said Andy.
And I support the charter as well!
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy
Bierman
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14
Aan: Randy Presuhn
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling
.html
:-)
--- Bert
http://bert.secret-wg.org/
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
as you finish registration, or at a later time by following the
link provided in the confirmation email.
Why does anyone need to REGISTER first before getting an invitation letter
which may help with getting a VISA ???
Bert Wijnen
___
Ietf mailing
COnsiderations)
that the security considerations of RFC4741 and RFC4743 also are
applicable and should be considered by any implementer or user.
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 15 januari 2008 23:01
Aan: IETF-Announce
Onderwerp
Recommendation, 28 October 2004
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
- I guess we should instruct the RFC-Editor to remove Appendix A
(Change log) right before publication as RFC.
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden
be handled
very carefully. What seems editorial to one person may not seem so
to someone else.
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
:
`InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding
`InetAdressType' object
./MGMD-STD-MIB:917: [5] {inetaddress-inetaddresstype} warning:
`InetAddress' object should have an accompanied preceding
`InetAdressType' object
Bert Wijnen
-Original Message-
From: The IESG [mailto
.
They CLERLY are not all valid. Read the InetAddress and InetAddressType
DESCRIPTION clauses and SYNTAX in RFC4001 and you will see that what
you did is worng, I tried to explain that above as well.
Also the TimeTicks issue is NOT acceptable, see above.
Bert
Many Thanks,
Julian Chesterfield
assume that everyone is OK with that. However, if anyone does see an
issue with it, pls let us (and the IESG) know asap.
Bert Wijnen
Chair of the IETF HUBMIB WG
-Original Message-
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 3:33 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
for notifications
(as per RFC2914)
Bert Wijnen
-Original Message-
From: The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: woensdag 10 januari 2007 7:40
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template (A
Template for Documents Containing a MIB Module) to BCP
I have read this document and can support it as an update to 4181.
Bert Wijnen
-Original Message-
From: The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 16 januari 2007 16:22
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181
Update to Recognize the IETF
Agreed. I had a few troubles on Monday in (I think it was monet
or one of those rooms upstairs), but other than that it worked
great!
Thanks to the NOC team and whoever else helped make it work!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday
WHen I checked in they told me I would have free inroom
internet access.
I used it saturday evening/sunday morning and by sunday eve,
I did not yet see a charge on my account, so I guess it WAS/IS
indeed free.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Sam Weiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
modules/
12. Section 6.1, second paragraph: s/802 developped MIB modules/IEEE
802 developped MIB modules/ and s/It is not formalized/This is not as
formalized/
13. Section 10, last paragraph s/Jorge/The IETF lawyer/
Nope, instead: s/Jorge/The IETF legal counsel/
Bert
-Original
is my view.
Thanks, Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Adrian Farrel
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 14:21
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey)
Morfin
I do not support
Glad to hear it is not just me.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Stephane Bortzmeyer
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 13:41
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; 'Scott Hollenbeck'; 'Sam Hartman';
ietf@ietf.org; iesg
Well said Barry!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 17:31
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
So
.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Gray, Eric
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 02:07
To: 'iesg@ietf.org'
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: 'A Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents' to
In formational RFC
If we can make
participants actually get some time to READ/STUDY the documents
that need f2f time in IETF WG meetings!
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
my 2 cents.
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
produced (from .nroff). See also my earlier posting.
I personally think that is unacceptable... but that is just that,
my personal opinion. If we (IETF) want it changed, then we
better express the need/requirement in the techspec activity as
I said above.
Bert
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL
% in sync with the final RFC.
And such (in my view) is bad for future revisions (if any) cause
the author (or next WG editor) will have to manually figure
out what the changes were and manually retrofit them.
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
review),
then PLEASE do offer your help!!!
Sooner is better than later in fact
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 01:03
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: On revising 3777
Do we have no serious technical work to do in IETF except discuss these
types of topics?
PLEASE
I see all sort of good technical peopel spending cycles on this.
Do you want to review some documents for me and report your technical
finding back to me and the community?
Bert
for line-oriented ASCII input, whether XML, LaTeX,
nroff, or what have you.
I think such a service would be a GREAT service for our WGs and document
editors/authors. Has the tools team looked at it at all?
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
you all for your trust and confidence in my being an AD.
And pls help the nomcom find a good candidate or better candidates!
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
for the
task that the PESCI team was started (at least as I understood it).
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
and the ADs to also take measures if someone
is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2).
I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an
IETF Last Call everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an individual
is disrupting normal WG process.
Bert
and have an opinion on.
This thread started on Aug 9th, and only now (saturday evening Aug 13th)
am I reading this thread of some 24 (pretty long) emails.
Bert
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
: 9
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
I have! and I clearly prefer xml
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
of the people
who are physically in the meeting. I have heard that a full scribe
would still be usefull, but for those who can actually listen in
into the audio, that seems less needed (at least in my experience).
Thanks again,
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Harald responded:
--On mandag, januar 31, 2005 23:56:27 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So (assuming 5/8 for now), the text would look like:
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of 5/8
actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain,
protect and manage the rights that the IETF needs
to carry out its work.
/t
Better?
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Monday
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 15:21
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Contreras, Jorge; Harald Tveit Alvestrand;
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities
regarding IPR
At 12
The current text I now have for this in my edit buffer os
as follows:
t
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation
from the IASA, ISOC or IETF for their services as
members of the IAOC.
/t
OK?
Bert
-Original
So (assuming 5/8 for now), the text would look like:
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of 5/8 of the voting IAOC members.
That is what I now have in my editing buffer.
OK?
Bert
-Original Message-
From
for undertaking any and all required
actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect and
manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry out
its work.
/t
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
the IAOC for a formal review of
the decision or action.
OK?
Bert
p.s. John,
In my editing buffer I have also fixed the last para to make it
IAB and ISOC BoT instead of IESG and ISOC
-- latest tex from Harald from Monday):
Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live
Lynn St.Amour wrote:
At 1:25 PM +0100 1/26/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Having seen some more reactions... I think we can solve
the general Ledger Accounts issue with a very simple
addition as follows:
section title=Cost Center Accounting anchor=cc-accounting
IETF
meeting of a year.
/t
Bert
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
putting into rev 05.
OK?
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
center.
The IAOC and ISOC shall agree upon and publish procedures for
reporting and auditing of these accounts.
Note that ISOC in consultation with the IAOC can decide to structure
the IASA accounting differently in the future within the constraints
outlined in Section 7.
Bert
or performed
internally within the IASA, must be clearly specified and documented
with well-defined deliverables, service level agreements, and
transparent accounting for the cost of such functions.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
I included an issue number.
The text had just made it to the list before your repost.
So I have added the suggested wording with Haralds adjustment
to the revision 05.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent
is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
During that process, we are still subject to whatever
CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not?
Bert
regards,
john
).
In the rev 05 doc (that I just submitted to the repository) I
have marked the text as strawman text... so I hope that that
is acceptable for now.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Leslie Daigle
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 03:16
To: ietf
-year agreement/contract
Gets an N-year contract with whom?
We are not part of the deal between CNRI/Neustar, are we?
Not according to what I understood of the posting!
Bert
I agree with John that we need to figure out if the BCP as-is
is all that useful in the face of what appears to be a done
.
Is that something we can live with?
I can
ditto
Me too. I have the above text now applied to my edit buffer.
Bert
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
construct
like IASA are not the same people who know how to design an efficient
transport protocol. So we want to have this open for getting
the right
people, I think.
I agree with Harald, so I support a no change for this item
Bert
Makes sense?
Harald
?
OK 4 me
OK by me. I have above text now in my edit buffer.
Bert
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
if you have an issue with that.
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
buffer
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 21:15
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Issue #787 - Transparency in sect 7
On Tuesday, January 25, 2005 18:01:31 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
