Speaking for myself, I would say that an internet draft is relevant to work in
a working group if and only if it is covered by the charter of the working
group. Anyone can claim anything to dodge the requirement that they ask
relevant groups to review it. That doesn't make the claim true.
In th
On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:55 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to
> Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that
> trying to make specific rules about this will result in an
> extended rat hole tour that ends up with rules that don't
>> Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
>> tools to collaborate.
>
> Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF
> or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using collaboration tools owned by
> the entities you listed, or
On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:41 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> First, "no objection" and silence by IESG members are roughly
> equivalent, but approval of a document with complete community
> silence (either outside the relevant WG or on an individual
> submission) makes some ADs nervous (and, IMO, should
>From my perspective, an important technical challenge in coming years might be
>a variation on delay-tolerant networking. We have done a fair bit of work in
>this area, for some definition of "we" - SOAP, Saratoga, and the NASA/JPL
>DTNrg work. As Dave Crocker likes to point out, we actually ha
On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:35 PM, SM wrote:
> If the IETF has become very international it would be apparent from the
> mailing list archives. A quick look would show that there weren't any
> messages from people from China or Japan [1].
I'd suggest you redo your analysis. It doesn't have a lot t
On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote:
>
> I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important.
>
>> There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within
>> our existing BCPs, to address this problem:
>>
>>
On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote:
>
> I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important.
>
>> There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within
>> our existing BCPs, to address this problem:
>>
>>
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 03/14/13 08:23, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
>> One question I have is whether there isn't a list for newcomers to ask
>> questions that some of us can be on to help them before they get to
>> the meeting?
>
>
Yes,
One thing that I suspe
On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Dave, all,
>
> We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or
> understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from
> reaching a common understanding of the situation now that we realised we
On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have
> working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are
> invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can strategically invite a few
> return attendee
In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that they
have not done their jobs unless they have raised a "discuss". The one that took
the cake for me personally was a "discuss" raised by a particular AD (who shall
remain nameless) that in essence wondered what he should
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
> say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
> sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
> by the IESG does serve a purpose.
I'm not saying i
On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> 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.
>
On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer
wrote:
> - There should be long-term commitment to maintain the data. I think we
> simply don't have such processes in place, and personally I don't want to
> even try to deal with this problem. I suspect that we'd have to eventually
> use paid help
I your blog, you wrote:
> Having been involved in the process for many years, often the bigger changes
> at this stage relate to cross-area issues, or the fact that the careful
> reviews from the IETF last call, directorates, and 15 ADs often represents a
> significant increase in the number of
On May 2, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
> When asked if more could be done, (without any specific proposal
> for what to do) the response was that increasing the workload
> would maybe lead to a significant drop in that 80% figure since
> secdir folks are also busy with their day-job
On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
> working
> group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
> participants and she may dominate the WG consensus.
There may be places where that h
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
> concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
> need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how significant
> this extra w
On May 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Arturo Servin
wrote:
> I am not expecting to agree with me as I do not agree that we only contribute
> to standards development.
I agree with the substance of Donald's comment. Let me talk for a moment about
Adelaide.
In March 2000, the IETF met in Adelaide. I w
On May 23, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 24/05/2013, at 9:06 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
>> I took the perspective that on our 40th meeting, we could have 1/40 in a
>> place that we had a few faithful participants that was well out of the way.
>
On May 23, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
>> One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper,
>> etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that have
>> been participating or are int
On May 31, 2013, at 7:03 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
> because more time in the air means more time without interruption where
> drafts can be read before the meeting.
Heavens no. All meetings should be in Santa Barb
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
> Well, if the dominant ones later being replaced by other groups, do we need
> to revamp again? What will be the end?
I'm told that white babies are now a minority of the population in the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341066/W
On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:26 AM, SM wrote:
> At 08:02 20-06-2013, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Keep in mind that you're talking to an organisation that believes that
>> Vancouver qualifies as "Asia."
>
> That should be added to the Tao. :-)
>
> At 08:24 20-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Politica
On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant
> in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some "more"
> technical standards where developed in IETF, and moved forward along
> standards
Congratulations, gentlemen.
On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:35 PM, IAB Chair wrote:
> Nevil Brownlee,
> Tony Hansen,
> Joe Hildebrandt,
> Bob Hinden,
> Alexey Melnikov,
> Bernard Aboba (an IAB member), and
> Joel Halpern (an IAB member).
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
>> The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
>> scheduled for March 2016.
>>
>> Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> I don't understand why this issue is coming up.
> Maybe you don't know, IETF 84 falls in the month of Ramadan for
> Muslims and nobody asked to change it?
Two comments, a question, and a suggestion.
One, the muslims in the crowd had the op
On Jul 20, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> As for the Ramadan issue: we've had IETF meetings during Jewish holidays a
> few times, and folks dealt with it as best they can. If there are some
> accommodations that can be made at any IETF meeting for different holidays of
> major religio
On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> So "Americas" was actually "North America".
>
> Well, it went the possibility to have one in central or south america,
> what at shame. At least until IETF 98 in March 2017 no IETF down the south of
> Rio Grande.
>
> May I a
On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> o Co-location with RIPE appeared useful. I agree with you Joel that
>> tighter packing would have made a difference. I met some people who
>> noted they will not attend, but probably would have attended if it
>> was during the week. Co-locating
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism
doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an opinion
about Marshall's character.
Ditto, and Ditto.
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems
like a good direction.
One suggestion: it would be good for the reference to BCP 79 be accompanied, at
least in the web page in question, with a link to the BCP
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt). I could imagine
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
>> This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and
>> seems like a good direction.
>
> Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like "a
On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a
> disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder
> for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around
> material
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote:
> According to some RFC:
>
> "All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
> and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
> a session starts."
>
> If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submiss
On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Was D.1 to ease wire tapping? By example, I, as a mail server operator
> who is not a telecom, am not required by my country's laws to provide an
> instrumentation whereby authorized investigators can obtain a list of a
> user's correspond
On Oct 7, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Lastly, I think Pete has failed to capture that one reason for using humming
> or hands is that it is easy for very active participants to dominate a
> conversation
> but much less easy for them to pretend to be a large group. Particularly in
On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:56 PM, S Moonesamy
wrote:
> I am not sure whether hums are for a starting point or not. It can be argued
> in different ways, for example, see Section 4. Humming helps to get a sense
> of the room without people making a decision under duress.
Personally, I think focus
On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I've done a lot of work on consensus over the years and I think
> this is fundamentally correct, although I'd amend the last sentence
> to something along the lines of "While we may not all agree, those
> who disagree can live with it." That is
41 matches
Mail list logo
