isn't there already some general area reviewers that perform this type
of function? I thought there were
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html
Invoked at IETF Last Call and/or IESG Evaluation.
For the IESG's latest discussion on early review, see
section 8 of
BTW, the IASA has formulated its approach to this balance:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/docs/IASA-Tao.pdf
and it certainly doesn't include micro-managing the budget.
Brian
Sam Hartman wrote:
Bob == Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob I must confess that I did not quite
Original Message
Subject: Montreal agenda still in flux
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:26:51 -0400
From: IETF Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Announcement list ietf-announce@ietf.org
Please be aware that there are still a few unresolved clashes,
and the Secretariat is working on
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 19 June, 2006 10:49 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'd be interested to know if anyone has comments on
draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks-00.txt:
This document describes tasks performed by the IETF Chair,
the IESG
Chair
Hi,
I'd be interested to know if anyone has comments on
draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks-00.txt:
This document describes tasks performed by the IETF Chair, the IESG
Chair, and the Area Director of the General Area of the IETF. Its
purpose is to inform the community of what these tasks
Bob,
First, I must request that the Internet Draft be retracted in its
present form. Section 4
contains a direct quote from one of my messages. However, the quoted
sentence was taken
brazenly out of context; its sense is quite the opposite of the sense of
my original
message. This is
Dave Crocker wrote:
For #1, it removes the requirements for Last Call and
demonstration of community consensus that apply to BCPs.
In other words, these are IESG Operational Notes, not IETF Operational
Notes.
Not really; some of them would be issued not on IESG authority but
on
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 18 May, 2006 17:16 -0400 The IESG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'IETF Process and Operations Documentss '
draft-alvestrand-ipod-01.txt as an
C. M. Heard wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Eric Rosen wrote:
There are also other reasons why I find this proposed experiment
disheartening.
For one thing, it really misses the point. We need to simplify our
processes, not make them more complicated. Either we need the
... I believe the
RFC 3978 practice and the RFC 2026 variance process provides
adequate means publishing documents with such references.
Kurt, what's the relevance of RFC 3978? The current procedure
for downrefs is RFC 3967, as mentioned in the draft. The RFC 2026
variance process is
...
The IESG (shepherded by Bill Fenner, Routing AD) has agreed to proceed
with the experiment.
Bill may have agreed to shepherd it, but the IESG has not reviewed
this document yet, so has not agreed to anything.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
I invite the IETF community to read this draft and discuss the choices
it suggests, between now and the Montreal IETF.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:50:01 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this message is not intended as legal advice.
Please, read RFC3979 for yourself, and if you have concerns as to what
your obligations are or what you can get away with, consult a lawyer.
On Wednesday, June 07, 2006 02:22:06 PM -0400 Gray, Eric
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Although I'm an IAB member, I'd rather make my one comment
on this draft in public.
I think it misses one point that should be mentioned. The
easiest way to explain it is to suggest new text:
4.4. Avoiding interference between publication streams
So how about concluding that there is no single
right answer to Iljitsch's question, but there may
be scope for defining considerations for the choice
of data encoding?
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
that's
effectively achievable or even maintainable in this document.
Leslie.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Although I'm an IAB member, I'd rather make my one comment
on this draft in public.
I think it misses one point that should be mentioned. The
easiest way to explain it is to suggest new text
Although I'm an IAB member, I'd rather make my one comment
on this draft in public.
I think it misses one point that should be mentioned. The
easiest way to explain it is to suggest new text:
4.4. Avoiding interference between publication streams
Although diversity of views and alternative
Michael StJohns wrote:
...
In the doc
It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an
organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
the RFC Editor.
This is incorrect.
Mike, in absolute seriousness, the time to make that comment was
in
Ran,
RJ Atkinson wrote:
On 5 Jun 2006, at 02:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Earlier, Ran Atkinson wrote:
It has NOT been the case in the past that IETF was the community
in control of RFC-Editor. In fact, that would represent a major,
and in many people's view highly undesirable, change
Ran,
RJ Atkinson wrote:
Previously, someone wrote:
I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major concern.
Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the
IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago,
Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
Hi Joel,
Reading the entire thread, I think we should seriously consider your
detailed suggestions to improve the PANA framework draft for broader
acceptance in the community.
Which is strong hint that this discussion now belongs on the PANA
mailing list.
Brian
Look at draft-ietf-newtrk-docid-00.txt
This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO.
Brian
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding
issue
here is the actual level
I suggest that people interested in this topic have a look
at draft-iab-liaison-guidelines-03.txt and send comments to
its author.
Brian
Thomas Narten wrote:
I think it is our collective responsiblity not to make false claims
when moving our agenda forward. This is true with any group.
Avi,
I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from mentioning how representatives
from specific companies spoke in another SDO. In the IETF, we trust each other
to leave our company affiliations at the door. The fact that statements about
the IETF were made elsewhere may be relevant, but who
Jordi,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Ray,
I think it is very unfair, especially after previous comments done on this
topic some weeks ago, to keep ignoring in our calendar the already fixed
events of AfriNIC/AfNOG, APNIC and LACNIC.
I'm not saying they are not actually being considered, but
Procedures. (convened by Margaret Wasserman)
4. Mailing list management procedures. (convened by Jim Galvin)
The appeals procedure topic didn't attract much interest.
More news as we get closer to Montreal.
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As General Area Director, I am aware of several
Is it because only two hundred people read the IETF discussion list?
No, because it was also announced on the ietf-announce list which has
many more subscribers than this one. (Something to do with signal to noies
ratios.)
And btw we deliberately target everybody, and not just meeeting
People willing to work actively (i.e draft or
and edit) a document on this topic are
invited to contact me immediately. The objective
is to plan a mini-BOF during the General Area open
meeting at IETF 66. Without committed volunteers
in the community, this work will not happen.
The IESG charter
As General Area Director, I am aware of several topics outside
the scope of existing WGs (ipr, newtrk) that appear ready
for attention in the General Area. This message is a summary;
I will follow up with separate messages for each of the
following topics.
1. IESG structure and charter.
2. WG
People willing to work actively (i.e draft or
and edit) a document on this topic are
invited to contact me immediately. The objective
is to plan a mini-BOF during the General Area open
meeting at IETF 66. Without committed volunteers
in the community, this work will not happen.
BCP 94 (RFC 3934)
People willing to work actively (i.e draft or
and edit) a document on this topic are
invited to contact me immediately. The objective
is to plan a mini-BOF during the General Area open
meeting at IETF 66. Without committed volunteers
in the community, this work will not happen.
BCP 9 (RFC 2026)
suggest a far more timid approach.
Harald
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
People willing to work actively (i.e draft or
and edit) a document on this topic are
invited to contact me immediately. The objective
is to plan a mini-BOF during the General Area open
meeting at IETF 66. Without
Tony Hain wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
Scott Leibrand wrote:
..
I agree, especially in the near term. Aggregation is not required
right
now, but having the *ability* to aggregate later on is a prudent risk
reduction strategy if today's cost to do so is minimal (as I think
Tim Chown wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:07:50PM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Thanks to IAD for opening registration (helps with visa requests, although
this is less of a problem in Canada than elsewhere in North America).
Yes, very nice to have the hotel and registration open 3 month
Kevin Loch wrote:
...
In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has
flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
for PI.
Kevin, I realise you may have felt provoked by the tone of
some earlier messages, but I must point out that (a) the shim6
work is
You might also want to look at RFC 4294
(IPv6 Node Requirements).
Brian
Juha Wiljakka wrote:
Hi,
My apologies, the previous message was sent all too early by mistake...
What I ment to say, you might want to have a look at RFC3316. 3GPP is
using it as a reference for Release 5 (and
Sam Hartman wrote:
Frank == Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Please provide more data (off-list) as this seems odd.
Frank Will do (ordinary moderation bounce), but on list I should
Frank fix the bogus URLs I've posted here (I forgot one
Eliot Lear wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
How does one fix later a contract, presumably a multi-year
one, if we get what we ask for and then discover that we don't
like it?
By specifying flexible terms in the initial contract.
Initial contract with who? The only fair bidding process I
v
|
/\
+-+ / \ ++
| Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money |
| To IPv6 | \/ | to Michel |
+-+ \ / ++
\/
M. Tough call.
Yes, it is. It's called long term strategic
investment
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-apr-2006, at 15:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with
provider independece.
You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling simulation
model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred
...
However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with provider
independece. If you examine European routes in the routing table of a
router on the American west coast, you'll see that the vast majority of
those routes point towards the same next hop. So if you could express
an
John,
At the moment there has been no transfer of rights in the early
RFCs to the IETF Trust, so I think you need to ask the
RFC Editor, or simply look at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.23Jan01.html
IANAL, but I have been told that in any case it is necessary
to check with the original
Dave Crocker wrote:
Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific.
It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out.
Not if the city is chosen 2-3 years out.
That really isn't likely for a meeting of our size; you need to be
in the 5000+ range for
Joel,
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I think is clear that we need to fix the meeting dates, and that
should be
done in advance so we avoid clashes with other events and we can
negotiate
with hotels and sponsors ahead of time enough to make it cheaper.
If you can't provide the functionality that the customers want your protocol
purity comes down to 'you have to do it our way, oh and by the way we have
no interest in listening to you'.
which is why some of us wrote draft-ietf-v6ops-nap
Brian
Andy,
As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget implications. That being
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ray,
I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
as to make it easier for many other organizations
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in
the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting
...
I guess I was just wishing out loud when I said maybe the
meeting fee could trend down instead of up. I would be happy
if the IETF had more control over the meetings
We have complete control since December 15, 2005.
so the fees
were stable,
The fees have to cover our costs. It would
Excuse front-posting but this will be short.
The EDU team discussed this very issue with the IAOC
in Dallas. There will be a draft revised charter for EDU
out for comment soon, but the short version is that (for
the reasons John gives) EDU will stick to classes aimed
at the IETF's own
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject.
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't
The IAOC will have a look at this issue.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Terry Gray wrote:
Perhaps someone could document what was done differently this time, so
that all may learn the secret?
A lot of it is obsessive attention to detail, but the other part is
choosing equipment that is known to work at IETF scale.
Writing it up is a good idea, if our good friends
Sam Hartman wrote:
Ed == Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ed I wonder if part of the reason is we often resort to a modus
Ed operandi of let a thousand flowers bloom and let the market
Ed decide for contentious issues. While that *might* work for a
Ed technology spec,
Ray,
I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling.
If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they
Ray Plzak (private),
Can you give the email addresses of the AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG
leaders? I'd like to write to them explicitly about this. It would
be good to get them more involved in the IETF.
Thanks
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ray,
I think our goal is to not lose essential
when you are heading in off in the weeds.
Try http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-01/interconn.html as an
alternative view of the ISP settlement world.
regards,
Geoff
At 12:12 PM 25/03/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I know I'm going to regret saying this, but we haven't made much progress
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking
is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and
teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any
decisions taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing
list for rough consensus. Otherwise, the people who happen
to
Keith Moore wrote:
It will also be a more open process. Today, in my opinion, having to
negotiate with each possible sponsor in secret, is a broken concept, and
against our openness.
I'm a lot more concerned about openness in IETF protocol development.
some kinds of negotiations really do
If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
people will be able to participate.
My head hurts. If more people can participate how come
we would need *smaller* venues? And by what miracle does
lowering the fee allow us to reduce
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and equitable disposition of
sponsorship funds.
Eric, I am not sure why this would be required.
In so far as it's required, it's
Here is a guess at the rule we should impose:
A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth
for the sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been
announced within the last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase
and use by individuals.
I really
The draft notes from the Wednesday plenary are posted
at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/minutes/plenaryw.txt
Please let me know of any errors. No need to copy the list
unless it's a discussion point.
Thanks to Mirjam Kuehne for scribing.
Brian
I know I'm going to regret saying this, but we haven't made much progress
in ten years.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-metrics-00.txt
I got a lot of interest in that draft, none of which came from
ISPs...
Brian
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I think that people need to consider that
...
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The comments on http are rather amusing when you consider we spent the next
five years trying to act on them.
At the time the CERN connection to the internet was a T1.
Er, the CERN connection to the NSFnet was a T1, or possibly an E1 by then.
CERN had much
Ran,
I could argue with quite a lot of what you say, but
I won't. Cutting to the chase:
RJ Atkinson wrote:
...
The IAB (or possibly ISoc BoT, but more obviously IAB and
not the IESG) ought to be running and driving any process to create
or modify a formal RFC Editor charter, at least as
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi Brian -
I agree with the first part (seek multiple proposals when possible
and appropriate). However, we may disagree on the last part
(transparent
as possible). My formulation would be transparent without the
qualifier. Transparent with a
It's been suggested to me that RFC 3639 might be
relevant to this thread.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave Crocker wrote:
This was eight years ago. The IESG that the complaint was made against
was:
Seems like there ought to be a statute of limitations.
In the IETF process, that's two months. I presume that anybody who
found the RFC 3932 (BCP 92) procedures unsatisfactory would have
Regardless of what the community consensus is on:
1. Are well known ports archaic?
I want to comment that on this:
If so, can we request that the IANA
do away with the distinction?
The IETF decides, and the IANA will then be responsible for implementing the
decision.
Brian
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for
reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the
STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB.
It is a modest extension of the RFC Editor paragraph as
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Carl,
my impression as a bystander is that the IETF has decided that sole
source contracts (where only one contractor is permitted to bid) are, in
general, a Bad Idea.
The Secretariat contract had very special circumstances, which caused it
to be sole
Scott Bradner wrote:
The other publication tracks in the above is meant to be
for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, whatever comes next.
and 1 april RFCs?
I suggest we discuss that 15 days from now...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Leslie Daigle wrote:
I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe
is going to be a common thread:
[Ran Atkinson wrote:]
Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the
publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly
should govern how IETF generated
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.
Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the
IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short
for us to spot this nit.
Brian
Leslie Daigle
General Area open meeting (AD and session chair: Brian Carpenter)
Wednesday morning
09:00 Welcome, and introduction (Brian Carpenter)
09:10 RFC 2434bis (Thomas Narten)
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-04.txt (coming soon)
09:25 PESCI wrap-up (Scott Brim)
...
Ignore China?
No, that would be foolish.
We automatically ignore any pseudo-TLD that only exists within
a walled garden, because it is simply invisible outside.
It isn't part of the global Internet. If it appears in any
way outside the walled garden, it is meaningless.
I think there are
John,
Both valid comments, which are in the tracker, but #1 is
explicitly not a DISCUSS (see the 5th bullet of section 3.2
of http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html).
Thanks
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this
The IAB and IAOC are aware of this and are discussing it.
Brian
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[The protocol and port assignment is mentioned, too, so I believe it
is of general interest here.]
http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/OS/OAM/Reference%2DNumber%2DDOCNTIARFI0001/SynopsisR.html
I just wanted to remind people again that if you come from
a visa waiver country, you will need a machine readable
passport or an actual visa for the Dallas IETF.
Please check carefully to avoid being blocked at the
airport. The details are complicated:
I did ask for this thread to be general. No problem if you
want to discuss your (least) favourite protocols here,
but please change the subject line...
Thanks
Brian
Andrew Newton wrote:
On Feb 18, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Given the
Somebody said:
... You cannot
fight disruption without formality.
An IESG statement issued under the authority granted to the
IESG by RFC 2026 is formal.
Brian Carpenter
IETF Chair
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian My point is only that while we have an active WG looking at
Brian the question of license terms for the use of text from
Brian RFCs, it wouldn't be right for the IESG to unilaterally
Brian approve
When considering some recent appeals, the IESG discovered that
we have very little guidance about the meaning of experiments
in relation to Experimental RFCs. RFC 2026 refers to work which
is part of some research or development effort and the IESG
has adopted some guidelines to discriminate
PROTECTED]
Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Tony, That would have amounted to the author and IESG
Brian deciding to change the IETF's policy on derivative works,
Brian which would have been way out of line, especially in view
Brian
Tony,
That would have amounted to the author and IESG deciding
to change the IETF's policy on derivative works, which would
have been way out of line, especially in view of the ongoing
debate about this point in the ipr WG.
Although I agree with Steve Bellovin that RFC 1321 isn't
automatically
...
so is
there a problem in walking about in this area of Dallas at this time of
year?
Possibly being arrested for not burning enough petroleum?
Seriously, taxis may be necessary once in a while.
Also, will the Agenda give longer breaks for Lunch?
- it would seem that it will take
Pekka,
Maybe folks more experienced in the area can shed some light on this. Is
it expected that folks rent a car in order not to starve, or..? Drive
500 taxis back and forth?
There is food on site of course, but taxis (shared!) seem to be needed
for wider choice of restaurants.
This
Jeroen,
A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
(which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must
be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for diffserv-interest
was must be
Eliot Lear wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming
bandwidth on the DKIM list. With the aggressive schedule, the
immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form
found acceptable.
Without going into all the reasons
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
(which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must
be relevant to a chartered work item
I would suggest that instead of sending such issues to a very large
list addressed to somebody, people should send them where they
may reach the right people: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and if that doesn't solve it, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian
Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
the Hilton reservation system
.
Brian
Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 14:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I would suggest that instead of sending such issues to a very large
list addressed to somebody, people should send them where they
may reach the right people: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and if that doesn't solve
And BTW it isn't a rule, it's strongly worded guideline.
Brian
Mark Townsley wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.
This date was chosen, understanding that it bends the rules a bit, to
increase the greater goal of global participation by coinciding with the
Ken Raeburn wrote:
...
Finally, I noticed the IAD included a question about Friday meeting or
not in the survey we were invited to on 9 January. Getting a sense of
peoples' views quantitatively is good, though that was a
self-selected group, rather than a random sample that could be
assigned a
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
grenville armitage writes:
- protects agains dilution of a WG's historical record (archives
that soak up all posts to the WG's mailing list)
Stop blindly archiving every message, and this ceases to be a problem.
The IETF standards process requires us to
Let's not sweat the details on this list.
We've got two points from this conversation:
1. it is good to have BOFs earlier in the week if possible,
subject to scheduling constraints.
2. it would be much appreciated, subject to financial limits,
to have some wireless connectivity through Friday
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I mean really, has anyone ever had their opinion changed because of something someone said during these PR-Actions?
This is in fact only the second last call ever on a PR-action.
I can assure you that the IESG reads the opinions expressed
carefully and does not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I mean really, has anyone ever had their opinion changed because of something someone said during these PR-Actions?
This is in fact only the second last call ever on a PR-action.
I can assure you that the IESG reads the opinions expressed
carefully and does not
1001 - 1100 of 1719 matches
Mail list logo
