Re: TLS requirements (Last Call: draft-ietf-atompub-protocol to Proposed Standard)

is a tricky one that actually doesn't have that much to do with TLS :) -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call Comments on draft-housley-tls-authz-07

is not needed... -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call Comments on draft-housley-tls-authz-07

Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eric Rescorla wrote: The listed terms are RAND but not necessarily royalty-free. Doesn't RAND mean Royalty-free And Non-Discriminatory ? I tried define:RAND at Google, but didn't get that one. Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory. -Ekr

Re: Last call comments about draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07

to something that precedes the IPR filing so a reference might be appropriate. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF Chair tasks

with Barry's choice ;-) I can vouch for Unibroue. Other than that, I'm most familiar with Western Canada beers, but Big Rock from Alberta is quite good. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Consensus? #733 Outsourcing principle

Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: EKR wrote: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and Scott Bradner supported the idea: In principle, IETF administrative functions should be outsourced. Decisions

Re: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

as no change required - the issue will not be forgotten, but it should not affect this document. I object to this entirely. As do I. How is closing it as no change required operationally different from forgetting it? -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf

Re: Consensus? #733 Outsourcing principle

possible. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members

grants exceptions, and what the criteria for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. I'd rather say possible, and add IAOC sets and publishes rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes necessary. But I can live with the current text). I prefer your wording as well. -Ekr

Re: Consensus? #771 Powers of the Chair of the IAOC

not sure what the most elegant language change here is, but... -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Consensus? #771 Powers of the Chair of the IAOC

Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On onsdag, januar 05, 2005 08:09:59 -0800 EKR ekr@rtfm.com wrote: The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting members to serve as the chair of the IAOC. The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage

Re: Adminrest: BCP -03: Compensation for IAOC members

directly paid by IETF--not that that's a likely event. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Adminrest: BCP -03: Compensation for IAOC members

, and long-distance calls to IAOC teleconferences. Hmm... Just because something is voluntary doesn't mean that we shouldn't reimburse people's expenses. I don't think I'd be comfortable wiring this into the BCP. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org

Re: Adminrest: BCP -03: Compensation for IAOC members

the IAOC members. There's a bright line between that and reimbursing them for expenses, IMHO. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Adminrest: BCP -03: Compensation for IAOC members

should be responsible for their own expenses. That's a perfectly reasonable policy, but the course of action you're arguing for is to write it into the BCP so that it can't be changed without extraordinary difficulty. Can you explain why you think that that's necessary? -Ekr