Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Well said Barry!
From: Barry Leiba
My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation
and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure
how realistic they are. Without getting overly into
fwiw, my feeling is that if we did bend the rules that way,
we'd be at strong risk of an appeal. I think the rules are
in a bit of a mess.
Brian
Sam Hartman wrote:
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John For whatever it is worth, I want to remind the IESG that,
Lars,
Sorry but the dates for 2008-10 are NOT blocked - those are strawman
dates that should not have been shown in the calendar yet.
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
Should be open *really* soon
Hi,
Jordi developed this document largely at my request and with
frequent interaction with the IAD. Clearly, it's intended to be
of use to IASA in the selection of future meeting sites, and
equally of use to potential hosts in understanding the
requirements. Self-evidently, it is not intended to
Tim,
The web site says:
We start Monday morning and run through Friday lunchtime, with late scheduling changes. Newcomer's training and technical
tutorials takes place the previous Sunday afternoon. Participants should plan their travel accordingly.
Friday morning is part of the IETF. It's
Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
Should be open *really* soon now.
And the hotel info?
The hotel blocks
Greetings,
The first IETF meeting took place 20 years ago today,
on January 16th, 1986, in San Diego, California. There were
21 attendees and Mike Corrigan was in the chair.
The IETF has come a long way since then. We'll celebrate
this in fine style during the 65th IETF meeting in
Dallas, Texas
John L wrote:
Do we know where the meeting will be yet? I see that registration was
supposed to start today.
I believe it will start in another couple of days.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Eric,
...
Moreover, I believe there is evidence to this effect, as
pointed out previously, in the fact that at least one RFC is
essentially only available in PS and PDF format.
That is an RFC that predates not only RFC 2026 but also its
predecessors, RFC 1602 and 1310. So it doesn't
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
What we are seeing is increasing use of fully automated tools that don't
have humans identifying which octets are MIB and which are code. You can't
do that with plain ASCII.
You can do that with meta-data encoded
Bob Braden wrote:
*
* Normative figures perhaps. Normative equations definitely.
Scott,
How about Sections 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4 of RFC 1122 (1889), for examples
of readable equations in ASCII? I my experience, normative protocol
technical specifications rarely need equations much more
...
What we are seeing is increasing use of fully automated tools that don't
have humans identifying which octets are MIB and which are code. You can't
do that with plain ASCII.
You can do that with meta-data encoded in plain ASCII. In fact, that
would work better for automated extraction
...
Anyone who agrees with the CfC statement, and doesn't say anything, is
fine, because the CfC doesn't need or want their support. The CfC will
stand or fall based upon the size of the disagree and replied group.
That's pretty much how I've seen IETF consensus work over the years.
As
Gray, Eric wrote:
Stewart,
You bring up a good point. I have been assuming that - since
IDs can be submitted in multiple formats - that the additional
formats would also become part of the RFC library on publication.
I just took a quick peek at the RFCs and there does not appear
Ash, Gerald R (Jerry) wrote:
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
Melinda Shore wrote:
On 1/2/06 11:32 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we're doing better on this front than we have in many
years.
The technical support for remote participation really has become
terrific. Some sessions are run with great sensitivity to remote
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing I am sure about is
that
consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly as it is.
I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus.
I do, however, see a
Michael Thomas wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[]
Sigh. Can I suggest that a little exponential backoff on
all parts may be appropriate? As one of the authors of the
dkim draft, this has been an extremely painful thread to
watch.
Correct. This is way beyond the point of being
Firstly, I'll observe that this is outside the strict scope
of the Secretariat SOW, since it covers the process cradle-to-grave,
including WG, IESG, IANA and RFC Editor actions.
Secondly, yes, dashboard metrics are a good idea, and are on the
Tools team agenda, but often the devil is in the
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
section 3 says:
| Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
| declaring
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 16:25:59 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the
Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo. Any
particular reason why? It just
...
I think it would be a good idea for the IETF to either pick an IPR
standard or to require WGs to specify what their IPR standard will be
when they begin a WG. I would be quite happy for the IETF to adopt the
same IPR policy as W3C and require all standards to meet that standard
of being open
JFC,
I have checked and from a legal point of view, the closing
signatures last week appear to make no difference to anybody's
legal liability. All recent RFCs carry a rather strong disclaimer
starting 'This document and the information contained herein are
provided on an AS IS basis...' and I
Scott Bradner wrote:
Sam sez:
It's certainly current IESG procedure that we can last call
informationals and experimentals. I don't know that 2026 does or
needs to say anything about it. Unless it is forbidden it seems like
a reasonable decision making tool for the IESG to apply in some
I remind people that the IESG has completed its appeal
handling for these documents. People are certainly entitled
to their opinions, of course, but the IESG appeal process
has ended.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On tirsdag, desember 06, 2005 13:07:50 +0100 Simon Josefsson
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, desember 07, 2005 09:57:04 -0500 Noël, Richard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be a conflict in the definition of SFTP; the IANA site
indicates that it's Simple FTP while the IETF side indicates it's Secure
FTP in conjunction with SSH ...
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.)
What we then do once we have
Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible
to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or proprietary products.
I believe that is unacceptable, and that it is counter to the needs of
many in the
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Dear Brian,
Great! the three stupid points I am stubbornly interested
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust
Doug Royer wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Doug Royer wrote:
... It does no good to discuss text that almost everyone
already knows has problems.
...it was created to ensure that everyone in the room is
actually discussing the same thing.
Yes.
Perhaps something like SVN could
Stepping back a few days...
Scott W Brim wrote:
The reason we have the deadline is to protect the Secretariat from
having to be heroes. However, best would be if the need for such
protection didn't arise.
Instead of assuming that things to be discussed in the meetings will
be written just
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The fact that Brian is English and lives in Zurich is irrelevant.
As a matter of fact I don't live in Zürich; I live near Genève.
Of course this matters. The problem is that it's not quite as
straightforward as people think. I'm attempting to send this
in UTF-8;
Simon,
You are bit behind real time. We already updated this text.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01837.html
Brian
Simon Josefsson wrote:
The text in section 9.5 appear to me to make it permanently impossible
to incorporate portions of RFC in both free or
type was still tagged as UTF-8.
OTOH your response is tagged Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
and indeed did get converted somewhere, at your end I suspect.
It's not so easy to assert that UTF-8 just works.
Brian
Regards
Marshall
On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
What is the purpose of the trust if not to attempt to prevent
unauthorized derrivative works?
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the legal
statement of purpose in the formal Trust
...
Were there still regular use of nroff in the broad community, there
might be an argument in favor of continuing to have it as the internal
representation of authoritative rfc text.
But there isn't. Whereas xml2rfc has been gaining broad (and
enthusiastic) adoption.
The anonymous
Bernard,
I'm sure we can get a more formal answer about this from our lwayer,
but my understanding is that this is a non-issue as far as any IETF
contributions (drafts, minutes, emails) are concerned. The underlying
copyright in those texts belongs to the original contributors; so the
copyright
Doug Royer wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
To elaborate:
Is is ever valid for a working group to want to post a new draft late
in the
game, very near -- or even during -- and IETF meeting? The answer is
clearly yes, which is why working groups route around the IETF's
arbitrary
deadline
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
The last requirement (boilerplate) was done on legal advice, and after
discussions in the IPR WG that are much too voluminous for me to even
remember it may be an unwise decision, but it was a very public one.
Judging by the occasional arrival of legal
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Good idea, if the network works ...
- Original message -
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand that is difficult to get the slides of everyone before the
meeting itself, but it should be very easy to centralize the slides in an
IETF server
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Hi John,
Your notes are convincing to me. In effect, you are saying that if the
IESG and IAB members cannot function well together, let's hear about it
before the nomcom cycle. I missed the sentence The petition and its
signatories must be announced to the IETF
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 11/9/05 at 11:40 PM -0800, Aaron Falk wrote:
Am I the only one dissatisfied with the meeting schedule? I find that
the run of meetings from 1300 to 1930 is just too long, especially the
four hour period from 1300 - 1710. I would strongly prefer our
'traditional'
I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that
jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi,
The list of Areas and Area Directors in the pocket agenda
is wrong! Please consult the list in the full-size version.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
A couple of local data points from Vancouver
- a taxi from the airport to downtown should cost CAD 30 plus tip.
- there are multiple small restaurants on Denman Street, a few minutes
walk from the Westin Bayshore. Turn right on Bayshore Drive out of
the hotel, turn left on Denman and walk to
Here's the text. You can pick up a map at the concierge desk
in the Westin. I ate at Wild Garlic last night and it was
excellent.
Brian
West Coast Cuisine
Cardero's (1) – 1583 Coal Harbour Quay – 604-669-7666
Wild Garlic Restaurant (2) – 792 Denman – 604-667-1663
Tapastree(3) – 1829 Robson
Mohsen BANAN wrote:
...
- Immediately addressed the problem and republished
in an Open/Libre/Free format.
Do you seriously imagine that this is a high priority
during the final preparations for a meeting?
As a matter of fact I agree with you that it's desirable
to avoid proprietary
Alper Yegin wrote:
- is the IETF community interested in discussions about the social
implications of the technology we develop
I think this is very interesting.
- is the IETF general list the right place for those discussions.
Is it too late to arrange a BoF meeting at IETF 64?
Yes,
Steve (and Ned),
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
What IETF discuss may hurt thir people, peace, culture.
But I am sure IETF Member
Sam Hartman wrote:
...
A ticket requesting closure of a working group includes a few things:
1) the working group being closed. High dissatisfaction has resulted
in the past when the wrong working group is closed.
2) Additional comments to be included in the WG closure message.
3)
[typo corrected to restore meaning]
Steve (and Ned),
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
What IETF discuss may hurt thir people
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
...
A ticket requesting closure of a working group includes a few things:
1) the working group being closed. High dissatisfaction has resulted
in the past when the wrong working group is closed.
2) Additional comments to be included in the WG
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
...
I understand why IETF fears local governments for their meetings.
I simply do not understand this statement. The IETF has no
concerns about governments, and we often have people in government
service who attend our meetings. They are as welcome as any other
engineer.
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
What IETF discuss may hurt thir people, peace, culture.
But I am sure IETF Member do not realize this?
If they were told they would understand.
What people do with technology may have
John C Klensin wrote:
Brian,
Let me make this short enough to encourage easy reading when you
wake up...
--On Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 15:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I really don't see the value of cross-posting when the
pesci-discuss list exists for exactly
I'm not even going to attempt to read this thread today (evening in
Beijing after a long flight and a long day).
But don't imagine that I and the PESCI team aren't aware of
the meta problem and believe that we have a shot at fixing it
this time.
I will read the thread as soon as I can but may I
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 21 October, 2005 16:16 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a hopefully constructive suggestion, perhaps people
can look at draft-hoffman-taobis-03.txt and see whether
it says enough in this whole area. Covering this in the
Tao seems right
Dave Crocker wrote:
I'm not convinced that non-WG lists should be announced
in a formal way, but it would certainly be dumb to
create a list and tell nobody.
If it is ok to create a list under ietf.org, it ought to be ok to
announce it on ietf-announce. If it is ok to announce such lists,
Ed Juskevicius wrote:
...
I don't know about July 2006 or November 2006, but I would be surprised
to learn they have room for us. If we seriously want to have IETF
meetings in Montreal or Toronto, we might have to wait until 2007 - if
we start planning now :-(
I'd just like to comment that we
...
Thus: please announce new lists when they are created.
Only if you want people to know about them :-)
I'm not convinced that non-WG lists should be announced
in a formal way, but it would certainly be dumb to
create a list and tell nobody.
Brian
We *could* open that can of worms, but a downref really sends
the same message with less work.
Brian
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 19 October, 2005 14:40 -0700 Bill Fenner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/19/05, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... to see a big red
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Found this one in my spam folder, and it made me wonder.
1) On first read (use of term IETF mailing list, use of term we
without qualification), this sounds like an IETF-sanctioned activity. Is
it?
You'll find the dix list at
Eric Rosen wrote:
...
I don't think there should be any political preconditions on the IETF venue.
The issue is whether the IETF can hold an effective meeting in
a given location. We need to refine the guidelines on that basis.
Further, if we're going to select host countries based on how
Yet again people are sending messages to the list which deviate
from their claimed subject line and involve statements about
individuals which seem to have little relevance.
I request everybody to stop sending such messages, and to
stop replying to them since that only amplifies the disruptions.
is that these issues be a formal requirement of the
community's decision in where we meet. And that they be taken seriously.
a.
On 17 okt 2005, at 21.50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Avri == Avri Doria [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Avri - MUST NOT be held in a country whose
Joe Abley wrote:
On 13-Oct-2005, at 20:35, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
How about adding that the mean outdoor temperature at the time of the
year the meeting is being held should be above 0 degrees Centigrade?
References to climate conditions outside the meeting venue have no
place in
Eduardo,
As you have already been told, this is not a prosecution.
It is an internal procedure of the IETF, intended to
protect our work against alleged disruption.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
I
The IETF is not a subsidiary of the Internet Society
and is not incorporated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
2005/10/17, Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: Eduardo Mendez [EMAIL PROTECTED
Eliot Lear wrote:
We have in my opinion had a consistently low operator turnout. I wonder
if it would be possible for us to align our conference dates in such a
way as to overlap with NANOG, RIPE, USENIX, LISA, and other appropriate
conferences so that we can get some crossover?
That
Sam Hartman wrote:
Avri == Avri Doria [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Avri - MUST NOT be held in a country whose visa requirements are
Avri so stringent as to make it impossible or even extremely
Avri difficult for some participant to attend.
I think this is too strict. I think visa
Excuse me Stéphane, but I do not find these comments constructive.
Anyone planning an international meeting for 1000+ people has
to take a great many things seriously that you seem to think
are amusing. We had some serious security problems in Paris,
for example.
Brian
Stephane Bortzmeyer
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rconi.com, Gray, Eric writes:
Voice conference calls - however done - are bound to be
better than E-Mail, just as face to face is better than
voice.
However, I haven't been heard phenomena are far from
unique to E-Mail and other text
I think we should look at new collaboration tools, for example has
anyone tried using a wiki to maintain an issues list?
Quite a few WGs use issue trackers of various kinds.
The Global Grid Forum uses a web tool based on sourceforge
for Last Call comments (which they call Public Comment).
.
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Skinner, Stephen wrote:
hello ,
I am a first time poster , I have been on the lists for only a couple of
months .and I have to agree with this line of thought .
I believed I would be witnessing
There was an error in this. The second sentence should be:
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to consider issuing an IETF Last Call and,
if one is issued, listen to the responses.
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
Can someone explain what is this?
I assume you have read RFC 3683. That should explain what this is.
Is it issued by the IESG?
Yes.
Is this a procecussion?
Do you mean prosecution? No. It's a proposed action under RFC 3683.
Where is the defense of Dean?
That
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
to the responses.
But as of now, we have not received such a request in
the case of JFC Morfin.
In terms of RFC 3683, nothing has happened yet
Hold on.
To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the
topic to: we don't like RFC 3683.
Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF
last call etc. But the code has never been tested until
the IESG recently received a request to take a PR action
against somebody - and we
Sam Hartman wrote:
JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JFC On 09:53 03/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt
Gray, Eric wrote:
I agree fully with Margaret except that I would suggest that people
might feel that a properly augmented version of 3934 would make it
possible to make 3683 obsolete. The augmentation Margaret suggests
are probably needed, but would be just a start, given how little the
RFC
I'd like to suggest that people who think they know how
to design an alternative to the DNS should go away and
do so, and come back when they have a proof of concept
to show us. It'll need to be scaleable, secure, robust,
internationalized, and deployable as a retro-fit, as well as
guaranteeing
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
legitimate hower single operator?
Neither. .gprs appears to be a private pseudo-TLD inside a walled
garden for GPRS operators.
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
/legal lurk
No first amendment issues are implicated here. The first amendment only
protects US persons (citizens residents) against actions by the US
government. Both sides of that equation are absent here.
This is private action against a
Dean Anderson wrote:
... It may also be
time to make a formal complaint to the ISOC about the pattern of misbehavior by
the IETF leadership in several related areas including abuse of Dean Anderson,
Dan Bernstein, Nick Staff, Jefsey Morfin, and others.
I reckon it's because we so much
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I'm worried about the process, and about the number of times it seems to
be invoked.
Banning should be exceptional.
It is. RFC 3683 has been on the books since March 2004 and has been
used exactly zero times until now.
Now we are presented with two dubious
(read
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
If the IESG has the time to compile blacklists and go on witch hunts,
perhaps it doesn't have enough work to justify its existence.
Randy Preshun has already responded, but let me observe that the
IESG did not initiate this proposed action, does not have a
Hi,
Although what WSIS may or may not decide is undoubtedly of
interest to the Internet community, I really think it is a
distraction here and now until there are concrete questions
for us to discuss. Our community's route to the WSIS discussions
is through the ISOC - where basic membership is
William,
It's hard to make that a rule. Unfortunately, this is the catch-all
list for the IETF. Note, Harald is not inviting discussion -
only a URL to click on.
Brian
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Would it be too much to ask for new rules so that in the future these
petitions be discussed
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
My proposition would be to create a minority position system. Where
such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions
Will, don't believe everything you read on the Web.
ISOC is heavily involved on our behalf in the WSIS
meetings and despite all the noise I am hopeful that
rational results will occur.
Brian
Will McAfee wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/
This is not their place to
Yaakov, if you can gather some people and write a draft and a
concrete BOF agenda, the existing ADs will look at it
seriously - but new work needs new hands and brains.
Brian
Yaakov Stein wrote:
Secondly, I don't think this area is an attempt to take the
IETF where no IETF has gone
...
My proposition would be to create a minority position system. Where
such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already.
Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally
involved
John C Klensin wrote:
...
Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you are
negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP 101, you are
even entitled to keep such agreements private from the IESG and IAB
while you are negotiating them, informing those bodies and the
Dean,
You are already the subject of a request to initiate action
under RFC 3683 and this message will be added to the dossier.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Dean Anderson wrote:
This isn't going to work, with ordinary
I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for
either or both of
1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute
mediator.
2. An IETF netiquette committee, to offload list banning procedures
from the IESG.
Brian
Dave Crocker wrote:
That's the reason the
Nicholas Staff wrote:
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
criticism of
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
--
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005
, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Actually that has been discussed, as have the scope boundaries
at the top (apps) and bottom (sub-IP). And the diffculty always
is the need for cross-fertilization and cross-area review.
Do you think that applications protocols can be designed with
only a liaison relationship
Yaakov Stein wrote:
(Back to the original subject line)
I must admit that I am still unclear as to
the true purpose of this new area.
At first I understood that the IETF was finally to address
real-time and/or delay-sensitive applications,
and Brian's list of WGs was just a proposed
1101 - 1200 of 1719 matches
Mail list logo
