Fred,
On 15/10/2013 06:38, Templin, Fred L wrote:
...
>> We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that
>> it's
>> relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-
>> chain
>> is ready.
>
> If it messes up tunnels, then it's not ready.
That doesn't fol
I know we don't normally do movie plugs on this list, but anyone
who's planning to attend the technical plenary in Vancouver
could do worse than watch "Terms and Conditions May Apply".
It covers both commercial and governmental invasions of privacy,
and how they are interlinked.
http://www.imdb.co
Fred,
On 12/10/2013 08:56, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM
>> To: Fernando Gont
>> Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunt
On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
> P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain, I
> must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last individual
> version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't
> want that in -- and I did rais
Hi John,
On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote:
...
> In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership
> who can
> participate in any discussions that occur,
Without obsessing about the word "leadership", but following up on a comment
made by Noel Chiappa on the "le
On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Arturo Servin
>
> > 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 su
Björn,
On 10/10/2013 10:21, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions,
>> to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance,
>> or we will have no voice on those occasions.
Fred,
See below...
On 10/10/2013 06:42, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Hi Ole,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:31 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Ronald Bonica; i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Last C
On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
> What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the
> chairs acting in that sort of "leader of organization" role. If we do
> accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will
> happen without consultation. For a C
On 08/10/2013 08:03, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
> were. On the second point, the truth is that informational RFCs are [not]
> treated as actual requests for comments much any more, but are taken as
> fixed;
I've inserted the "not" that Ted certainly intended. But I think he raises
an important point
The place to go is definitely not the page for a closed WG. How can that
be expected to track things that happened after the WG closed?
Since it's a BCP, you get the lot at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10
or http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp10.txt.
In this particular case, you can also find
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt
D
On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote:
...
> It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY for the authors
> of a draft, and the IETF "reminder" system seems to be focused solely on
> authors. The duty to disclose IPR lies with any individual or company that
> participates in the IET
On 18/09/2013 09:11, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 9/17/13 1:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the
>>> IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as
>>> IEEE, W3C, ITU, and qui
On 17/09/2013 17:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi John,
> At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>> By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't
>> want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them),
>> things are getting to the point that it takes far too much
>> energy t
Is it just me, or does this sentence now seem like hubris?
> In fact, the IETF review
> is more extensive than that done in other SDOs owing to the cross-
> area technical review performed by the IESG, a position that is
> further strengthened by the common presence of interoperable running
>
certainly a decent option. I can
see it being especially valuable for people who change their name but
want to keep a unified publication history. Also for people who've published
under legitimate variants (B Carpenter, B E Carpenter, Brian Carpenter
and Brian E Carpenter have all published,
On 17/09/2013 08:10, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> This is a claim in the boilerplate which the IETF, not the authors, are
>> making.
>
> I am sure flames are already directed my way for being imprecise here, but
> what I mean is that although the authors p
On 17/09/2013 02:39, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> [First post here]
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and
> there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the
> problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names).
> Lik
On 11/09/2013 09:59, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
...
> My colleagues and I worked on OpenWrt routers to get Unbound to work there,
> what you need to do is to start DNS up in non-validating mode
> wait for NTP to fix time, then check if the link allows DNSSEC answers
> through, at which point you c
On 10/09/2013 08:39, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Yes, I am speaking of what would be possible today with a fresh start. The
> fresh start would also include signatures and encryption as a required part
> of the design. (If everyone has to have a key, the key management problems
> would be greatly r
On 10/09/2013 01:58, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
> Seriously, this perfectly illustrates the reason why PGP hasn't seen
> widespread deployment: it doesn't address a use case that anybody understands
> or cares about,
True story: Last Saturday evening I was sitting waiting for a piano
recital to start
On 09/09/2013 03:03, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> Probably best if we keep the politics off the IETF list.
>>
>> Noel
>>
>
> I grew up in politics. There is a method to my approach here.
Nevertheless, it is the wrong method here.
Ted,
On 07/09/2013 03:32, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 2:46 AM, SM wrote:
>> At 20:08 05-09-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> I think we all knew NSA was collecting the data. Why didn't we do
>>> something about it sooner? Wasn't it an emergency when the PATRIOT act
>>> was passed? We c
On 07/09/2013 08:55, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2013, at 21:32, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adam Novak wrote:
>
>
>>> The IETF focused on developing protocols (and reserving the necessary
>>> network numbers) to facilitate direct network peering between private
On 06/09/2013 15:11, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
> S/MIME is almost what we need to secure email. What is missing is an
> effective key discovery scheme. We could add that and add Ben Laurie's
> Certificate Transparency and have a pretty good start on a PRISM Proof
> email scheme.
OK, that's a
On 06/09/2013 15:08, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I don't detect the emergency.
>
> I think we all knew NSA was collecting the data. Why didn't we do something
> about it sooner? Wasn't
I'm sorry, I don't detect the emergency.
I'm not saying there's no issue or no work to do, but what's new about
any of this?
Was PRISM a surprise to anyone who knew that the Five Eyes sigint
organisations have been cooperating since about 1942 and using
intercontinental data links since 1944)? Wa
I tend to agree with Pete - the minutes are more like an official
record, as well. BTW, the IESG Charter (RFC 3710) says:
"The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the
Internet,..."
In any case, apart from this detail, I think the draft is good to go.
Brian
On 06/09/2013
On 04/09/2013 11:20, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 6:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> So that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
>>> another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs
>>
Comment at the end...
On 04/09/2013 08:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> in line
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd
>> paragraph in the same section
>> An official summary of s
On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive
>> removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes
>> sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do
>>
>> but the 3rd pa
Hi Jari,
On 03/09/2013 02:23, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> At the time of this writing, the IETF operates as if the
> Proposed Standard was the last chance for the to ensure the
> quality of the technology and the clarity of the standards
> document.
There's a point that I think should be made here
On 02/09/2013 04:22, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/1/2013 9:08 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I think Scott has put this perfectly, and it's exactly right. The
>> main point is clear communication. Everything else is advice about
>> how to achieve that.
>
>
> Both are needed. Especially for a topic li
On 31/08/2013 02:26, SM wrote:
...
>
> The nit is why is the IETF still using PDT.
I assure you that things were operationally much worse when the
Secretariat was using EDT.
Really - the service level has improved continuously over the last
eight years. Of course things can always be better, and
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
I think that if we worried about every minor deviation from RFC 2026,
we would be here for a long time and wasting most of it.
I have no particular objection to publishing the draft.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
(who tried and failed - see draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique,
draft-carpenter-rfc2026
I've been doing some more thinking about this, and I have received
quite a bit of private feedback about my previous comments, ranging
from "don't be so picky, let these guys do their thankless job" to
"please be more picky, this is the thin end of the wedge."
So - this isn't really about being pi
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
On 05/08/2013 06:54, Ted Lemon wrote:
> While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons,
> reading the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that
> remote people see the slides at the same time as local people. For that, it
> seems to me that Meetecho
t;
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Chris Griffiths wrote:
>
>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>>> Re the Trust's plenary slides (I was not in Berlin):
>>
On 03/08/2013 00:13, Scott Brim wrote:
> I'm completely against participating anonymously because of IPR issues.
> I'm mostly against pseudonymous participation for the same reason. I
> need to be able to know who I'm dealing with, in order to know if there
> are IPR issues that should be brought
Hi,
Re the Trust's plenary slides (I was not in Berlin):
I have an allergy to modifying the Trust Agreement unless there's an
overwhelming reason to do so. It was a very hard-won piece of text.
> Issue #1
> We have recently been asked permission to
> republish the TAO with a creative commons
> l
On 02/08/2013 01:30, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
>>> (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
>>> The
Hi Keith,
On 31/07/2013 18:35, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> It's been pointed out before that in a group with very
>> diverse languages, written words are usually better
>> understood than speech. It's a fac
On 31/07/2013 05:47, Bob Braden wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
>>
>> E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
>> (approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be 'di
On 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
>> users don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
>> So "transparent Internet access" isn't a commodity.Transparency
>> wo
On 31/07/2013 06:27, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 16:41 +0200 IETF Chair
> wrote:
>
>> Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many
>> PS->IS transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published
>> in October 2011. That RFC changed the three-step stand
On 30/07/2013 06:18, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Monday, July 29, 2013 01:37 -0400 Brian Haberman
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is
>> send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting. Those
>> summaries generally give folks a good idea
On 28/07/2013 00:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
"newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group"
> ...
The first quote
And there is a "Training" section in the meeting materials page.
It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it there.
All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it.
Regards
Brian
On 27/07/2013 08:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 27/07/2013 03:32, John C Kl
On 27/07/2013 03:32, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the
> most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday
> afternoon tutorials and introductions. Many of them are (or
> should be) of as much interest to remote participants as
Some people here will remember that Jon was an IETF participant and an
IAB member a number of years ago.
Brian
2014 IEEE Technical Field Award Recipients and Citations
IEEE INTERNET AWARD-recognizes exceptional contributions to the advancement of
Internet te
would be *our* trolls ;-)
Anyway - as John Klensin said, we should come up with a reasonably
complete and welcoming set of info and facilities for the remotes.
That may well include pro forma registration.
Brian
> On Jul 24, 2013 3:56 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
> wrote:
>
>>
On 25/07/2013 05:01, Scott Brim wrote:
> The point of having a separate list for participants was to avoid
> spamming the ietf list.
>
> It can be open to everyone to subscribe to, since anyone can see the
> archives, HOWEVER I recommend that only registered participants be
> allowed to post.
Ahe
The wiki page uses the phrase "WebRTC-compatible browser".
For those who know zilch about WebRTC, a list of such browsers
would be handy. Also a test page for OPUS, since otherwise people
will have exactly 5 minutes before the session to get set up.
Finally, is the list 87all of any help to non-
Sanjay,
A comment from an old-timer: if you want to understand the IETF as a whole,
put your priority on the Newcomer's orientation. There's plenty of time
in the future to understand details of the IETF's administration.
Unfortunately, clashes between interesting sessions are unavoidable
at the
> Do you think they are lying when they say they won't be dotless?
Since http://dotless won't work in any host that has a default domain
configured, which as far as I can tell is most hosts on earth, I
don't think they're lying.
It may be stupid and a license to print money, but that's another st
Douglas,
...
>> Those traveling thousands of miles already confront many uncertainties.
>> Those that elect to participate remotely should be afforded greater
>> certainty of being able to participate when problems occur at local venues
>> or with transportation. Increasing participation witho
On 11/07/2013 07:44, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/10/13 1:41 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> On 07/10/2013 02:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>> The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and attendees
>>> have always been encouraged to attend for the week. Allowing one day
>>> passes is a
> (2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers.
OK, but what would X be in "Four companies account for X% of
people eligible to volunteer"?
That said, the "not more than two from the same employer" rule
was written in anticipation of a theoretical problem; it seems
that it was a good id
1990s.)
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 28/06/2013 11:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news - she is
> lost at sea between New Zealand and Australia:
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893482
>
> h
On 03/07/2013 14:23, Russ Housley wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
>
> Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here.
...since late 2002, that is. There were appeals earlier in history. The
first one I recall reached the IAB in 1995, and had presumably al
Further bad news: no sighting and no debris after considerable searching.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23110736
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 28/06/2013 11:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news - she is
> lost at sea betwe
Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news - she is
lost at sea between New Zealand and Australia:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893482
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893503
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 26/06/2013 05:58, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> Scott Brim wrote:
>>
>>> 2119 overrides anything you might think you know about what words
>>> mean.
>
> No, 2119 PURPORTs to do that. It can try but it probably isn't going to
> succeed.
Tom,
On 25/06/2013 22:48, t.p. wrote:
...
> The main impression that this page has on me is that this is a part of
> the IETF,
Yes. It is a committee set up by the IETF (with help from ISOC).
...
> The very brief description - "the fiscal and administrative support" -
> makes me think of taxes
On 25/06/2013 08:38, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Monday, June 24, 2013 16:28 -0400 Alia Atlas
> wrote:
>
>> I read SHOULD and RECOMMENDED as different.
>>
>> SHOULD is how a implementation ought to behave unless there
>> are special circumstances (deployment, additional
>> functionality, bett
Hi Ray,
I think it's very good. One micro-comment: the menu at the left
is headed up by the IETF logo (which is in fact a link to
the main site). I did find that momentarily confusing - maybe
the first two items could be labelled "IASA Home" and "About IASA"
to make it clear which menu this is?
B
On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>> As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be improved
>> in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might be better
>> placed in an ICANN discussion than on IETF li
t;I've
read it and I think it's good work" as substantive, especially
if it comes from a known expert. YMMV
Regards
Brian
On 12/06/2013 08:31, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 6/11/13 3:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Pete,
>>
>> On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
Pete,
On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
> It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
> more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
> send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're
> voting. Details below.
Just t
On 09/06/2013 13:20, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions
> to be on a dedicated and constrained mailing list in any way
> implies that this generalized and unconstrained list is somehow a failure.
>
> Filtering by subject line is unreliable.
>
On 09/06/2013 07:55, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote:
>> As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a
>> decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus.
>
> I don't think it's off-topic. Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires
> t
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that,
your mail is rather likely to get junked.
I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF
discussion list. That is exactly the right place for them.
It's r
Hi,
My main positive comment is that it's a good idea to document guidelines
in this area, and that (viewed as guidelines) I largely agree with
the draft.
My main negative comment is that although the draft says it's not a
formal process document, its language in many places belies that.
For exam
On 01/06/2013 15:00, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush
> wrote:
>
>> < rant >
>>
>> the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
>> listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
>> out of ipv6. the end user, and the op,
On 30/05/2013 08:04, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 29 May 2013 18:42, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote:
>> /me wonders if we need a separate series for informational documentation
>
> Or maybe multiple paths, with multiple entry points.
We already do have exactly that, and there are many instances
of propr
On 28/05/2013 21:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
> considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for
> publication.
>
> We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns
On 21/05/2013 13:06, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein
> wrote:
>
>> At Mon, 20 May 2013 10:18:21 -0400, John C. Klensin wrote:
>>> This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
>>> but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even though
>Publication of EUI-48 or EUI-64 addresses in the global DNS may
>result in privacy issues in the form of unique trackable identities.
This might also result in such MAC addresses being spoofed, thereby allowing
some sort of direct attack. So it isn't just a privacy concern.
...
>Thes
On 18/05/2013 11:59, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:14 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> I, however, do have one significant objection to the c
John,
On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
> draft of the document and do not believe it should be published
> (at least as an RFC in the IETF Stream) until the problem is
> remedied. The Introduction (Section 1) contains t
Dave,
On 17/05/2013 04:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> The problem here is that basic reviewing is being done by the ADs too
> late in the process.
You are making a lot of assumptions in that sentence. At least these:
1. "Basic" reviewing means
2. At some stage before approval, ADs should
I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except
for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common
sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are guidance,
not rules.
Also, everybody needs to take the word "discuss" literally. An
entirely possible outcome
On 12/05/2013 03:17, SM wrote:
...
>> The fact that the IPv6 address pool is very large does not remove the
>> fact that it is a not an infinite resource and thus, constraints must
>> be applied to allocation policy.
>
> The constraints are not set by the IETF. It's up to other communities
> to s
On 11/05/2013 04:58, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Thanks Bing -
>>
>> The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
>> referencing Tim's expired draft.
>
> So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is
> ment
On 10/05/2013 01:13, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Thursday, May 09, 2013 03:32 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
> wrote:
>
>> So in this case, we're looking at "RFC Editor state" =
>> "Heather, please do something" + "some working group, please
>> do something" + "author(s), please do something", and we
On 08/05/2013 08:33, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
>> ...
I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
out, we deployed something with a restriction that
subsequently turn
On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
...
>> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
>> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
>> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
>> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're stuck
>> wit
On 07/05/2013 02:10, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> http://labs.apnic.net/blabs/?p=309
>
> an excellent detective story on badly-written, poorly edited, standards track
> RFCs leading to interop problems. Enjoy.
I don't that is quite right. The problem in this case is not to do
with linguistic qua
On 04/05/2013 09:22, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work
> and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only
> succeed with professional (=paid) editors.
I think I disagree, if we can find the knack of effective crowd-s
Would people like to see a new version of the SIRS draft?
In addition to the questions John raised below, Francis
and others mentioned: lack of reviewers. Also there is the
question of overlap with Area review teams such as secdir,
and there is accumulated experience from Gen-ART (RFC 6385).
Rega
On 02/05/2013 05:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> The blog nicely classes the problem as being too heavy-weight during
> final stages. The quick discussion thread seems focused on adding a
> moment at which the draft specification is considered 'baked'.
>
> I think that's still too late.
What, you a
On 30/04/2013 08:49, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
> Statistical analysis is only useful if it's going to tell you something
> that matters for your decision criteria.
Yes. And I would like to know, in statistical terms, whether
there are significant differences between (for example) the
M/F ratios among
On 27/04/2013 20:02, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> A DRM add-on that individuals or small groups use to protect their
> stuff seems to be a chimera.
Has anybody tried to design one?
Brian
As a list admin, I have (a) instantly unsubscribed the sender
(b) put the sender in the 'forbidden to subscribe' list
(c) sent him a message telling him he can ask to be resubscribed
if he wants to post on-topic.
No, I didn't worry what any process RFC might say.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 26/04/2013 23:38, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 26/Apr/2013 02:53:58 +0200 Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Personally, I don't have a firm position on these issues, but I couldn't let
>> this pass by.
I've thought about this a bit and looked at some on-line discussions.
In as far as this might
On 18/04/2013 16:28, Pete Resnick wrote:
...
> That's a factor of between 4 and 7 difference between an "eyeball" guess
> and a rough calculation. I think that's likely an unintentional sampling
> bias of your (and many other folks) eyeballs. And I think it's because
> we have a tendency to subcons
On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
> So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think
> it's mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they notice
> that looks like a problem.
There's an important class of problem that can only be found by some
1 - 100 of 1831 matches
Mail list logo
