Gender diversity in engineering

There have been some good numbers floated on recent threads, but at least for me, they aren't enough to gain a complete (or nearly complete) picture of the issue. Having studied statistics, we need to know a starting point, and look for the reductions (or increases) from that point forward. St

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

At 06:31 PM 4/24/2012, Stephan Wenger wrote: Remember, this whole discussion is about a) taking pictures, and b) publishing them. incorrect, this discussion started with Russ proposing copying each WG meeting's attendees list - from the blue sheet - into the meeting minutes. It has gone on f

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

At 05:17 PM 4/24/2012, Martin Rex wrote: John C Klensin wrote: > > I strongly encourage the > IASA to avoid ever holding an IETF meeting in Germany again > without first obtaining appropriate legal advice that it is > acceptable given our existing conditions t

Re: Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN

At 04:52 PM 4/24/2012, Stewart Bryant wrote: On 24/04/2012 22:39, Linda Dunbar wrote: I think that the Charter should have some text to identify the key differences between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN. If the key differences aren't properly described, all the protocols developed for L2VPN and L3VPN

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

At 01:31 PM 4/23/2012, Michael StJohns wrote: At 01:26 PM 4/23/2012, Andy Bierman wrote: >On 04/23/2012 10:13 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> >>At 12:22 PM 4/23/2012, Melinda Shore wrote: >>>On 4/23/12 6:58 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote: see rfc 2418 - they are to keep a record as who is taking

RE: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

At 04:29 PM 9/2/2011, Ross Callon wrote: In looking through this discussion, I see: - People saying that moving from 3 steps to 2 steps is a small step in the right direction, lets do it. Many people who have said this (including I) have been silent for a while quite possibly because they ha

Re: voting system for future venues?

At 01:21 PM 8/29/2011, Melinda Shore wrote: On 08/29/2011 09:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote: WGs can and should apply discipline to make email the primary mode of interacting, with occasional virtual meetings and even more occasional physical meetings. Just because there is a physical meeting doesn't

Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

At 04:24 PM 8/22/2011, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes. The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this schedule: 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I 11:00

Re: location preferences

At 04:56 PM 6/20/2011, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 6/20/2011 2:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Speaking only for myself, I will note that the worst IETF experience I ever had was in Dallas: the location was remote and poor, we were flooded out of the hotel, alternatives nearby were few, and you neede

Re: I-D Action:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.txt

At 02:05 PM 3/15/2011, Brian Carpenter wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk wrote: >> >> Brian >> >> playing devil's advocate here... >> >> Say someone submits a request

Re: I-D Action:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.txt

At 04:05 PM 3/14/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote: There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we can get consensus soon. Just a couple of remarks on 5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels 1) Probably there should be a statement that all existing Internet St

Re: IETF 83 Venue

At 03:31 PM 1/19/2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote: The IAOC is pleased to announce Paris as the site for IETF 83 from 25 - 30 March 2012. The IETF last met in the city in 2005 at IETF 63. Paris was the number one choice for a European venue in a venue preference survey conducted after I

Re: BCP request: WiFi at High-Tech Meetings

At 09:55 AM 1/4/2011, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: It could be the 11a support. Or it might well be the vendor that supplies the 11a equipment. At home I have a box with 7 defunct WiFi routers that I discarded after they started to fail. Specifically the wireless side of the router would stop

TSVDIR Review for draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05

I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues rai

Re: Feedback on Day Passes

At 12:48 PM 11/30/2010, Bob Hinden wrote: James, Tobias, On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:46 AM, James M. Polk wrote: > At 12:39 PM 11/29/2010, Tobias Gondrom wrote: >> Bob, >> >> agree with James request for more detail on the used day passes, if >> possible. We took surv

Re: Feedback on Day Passes

ipants so could actually easily verify such conditions). Just my 5 cents. Many greetings, Tobias On 11/22/2010 09:28 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > Bob > > Is there any data to tell us whether these one-day passes were > targeting a specific WG or day of converged scheduling in which a key

Re: Feedback on Day Passes

Bob Is there any data to tell us whether these one-day passes were targeting a specific WG or day of converged scheduling in which a key number of WGs met within an area? It might be quite useful to know if day-passers were targeting a WG (and if so, which WG) or were just taking in whatever

Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets

heck, make these miscreants where a special colored dot broadcasting they're out of a job so everyone will know they're meeting beggers and hopefully folks with jobs will feed them throughgout the week too... are any of you really this idealistic, or does it just feel good typing the words to

Re: [79all] IETF Badge

At 08:14 PM 11/11/2010, Scott O. Bradner wrote: This seems to be this year's cookie crises... speaking of cookies, I haven't found satisfactory ones yet (anywhere) ;-) BTW - otherwise, I've enjoyed the meeting and facilities here James ___ Ietf

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01

BTW Eric, my views here are just comments and shouldn't be taken as if these are showstoppers for your doc's progression. James At 02:38 PM 10/28/2010, James M. Polk wrote: At 02:06 PM 10/28/2010, Eric Rosen wrote: James> perhaps this needs to be stated (that the Type 4 is cr

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01

At 02:06 PM 10/28/2010, Eric Rosen wrote: James> perhaps this needs to be stated (that the Type 4 is created by this James> doc for your purpose)? I think the doc already makes this clear, maybe I'm not sure what you are asking. you may be right (that I'm not being clear). This is all about t

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01

Eric At 01:44 PM 10/27/2010, Eric Rosen wrote: > Minor issues: > - Section 3, 2nd para, second sentence is: > > "A Type 4 S-PMSI Join may be used to assign a customer >IPv6 (C-S,C-G) flow to a P-tunnel that is created by >PIM/IPv4. " > I'm curious how else might a Type 4 S-PMSI be use

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01.txt

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

At 09:44 PM 10/25/2010, John Levine wrote: >I am happy to agree to what the draft currently says. We've sliced >and diced this many times over the years, and this seems very close to the >least-unpopular view. That's the best we can hope for, imho. I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, es

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

At 09:59 PM 9/30/2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Since you asked, I'd like to see this move forward as quickly as possible. Just one practical issue seems to be hanging. The draft says: This document makes no change to the current STD practice; however, this topic deserves further discussion by

Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent

At 05:45 PM 9/3/2010, Hascall Sharp wrote: On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: ...snip... Am I missing something? ...snip... Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. Creating the ability to mimic o

Re: All these discussions about meeting venues

At 06:31 PM 8/29/2010, Randall Gellens wrote: At 7:23 PM -0400 8/29/10, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > It really comes down to which bias to apply in site selection: towards those who want to be a tourist, or those who want to do work. Based on my observation of and participation in the meeting

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

I'm going to pile on what Michael and Mary have already said, by saying the comparable list of cities (Minneapolis, Orlando, Vancouver, Barcelona, Prague) isn't even remotely close to including Maastricht. Each of the above cities are accessible internationally via air (as in: on intercontinent

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

At 06:15 AM 7/30/2010, Aaron Falk wrote: On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: > >> Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps tremend

draft-douglass-timezone-xml-00 & Presence

Doug/Cyrus How is this unique wrt to what Presence has provided in XML for 4-6 years? A comparison is at least preferable to what already exists for timezones in XML, IMO. James At 03:30 PM 7/5/2010, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-

Re: Bar BoF on Location Coherence Wednesday at 11:30 AM

Richard This conflicts with the WG chairs lunch. Is there another time that's not inconflict with a meeting you're likely attending for this? James At 06:11 PM 3/17/2010, Richard Barnes wrote: Hey all, This message is announcing a bar BoF ("lunch BoF") on Location Coherence -- interoperabi

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization (Part #1)

At 11:04 PM 3/2/2010, Fernando Gont wrote: (added CC to tsvwg) Hello, Alfred, Thanks so much for your feedback! Comments inline > (1) Fundamental, general issue: Terminology > > A few voices have caused the authors to adopt a rather questionable > terminology throughout the draft, during

Re: publishing some standards immediately at Draft-Standard status?

At 09:44 PM 11/11/2009, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:28, Tony Hansen wrote: published directly at Draft Standard status Raise the bar so they stay at I-D level for even longer? A sizable part of the Internet is run on I-Ds, not on PS. I think the right direction is to publi

Re: One level up on the IAOC decision in re: China.

At 03:38 PM 9/24/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS wrote: Notwithstanding the letter (or the intent) of the quoted contract language, many people here have pointed out that all sides (IETF, Chinese government, the Hotel, and participants in China/Asia) want to have a suc

Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meetingof the IETF

At 12:41 PM 9/24/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: Ole Jacobsen wrote: Dave, By the time everthing is said about this I suspect the "chilling effects" will be minimized. There will probably still be people not wanting to go "on principle," but I at least hope that the number will not be so great as

Re: China venue survey

At 05:44 PM 9/22/2009, Dave Cridland wrote: On the other hand, I can accept as valid the suggestion that some people have made that the particular restrictions of speech that the PRC impose may restrict the scope of discussion that the IETF typically engages in. I suspect that it may not be so, a

Re: China venue survey

At 12:47 PM 9/22/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Cullen, Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is Beijing, although a lot of people seem to have assumed so and yet more people copied the assumption. The announcent of the venue is expected soon, within say 30 days. But to the c

RE: China venue survey

At 11:23 AM 9/19/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Hi Ole, > > The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs. > > We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality, > and (at least in the community I'm a member of) ab

RE: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers

I think this doesn't address the concern about having a meeting agenda done before anyone needs to make travel adjustments. Quite simply having the agenda done the week before any meeting in the past 30 makes any flight or hotel booking adjustments laughable. This pressure to have a more robu

Re: IETF74 T-Shirt Art Donated to IETF Trust

This is a cool design, I agree. With that said, I think a discussion needs to occur on the devaluation of the importance of what the shirt means - were it to be distributed to any/many folks that did not attend an IETF. There have been several other cool designs from IETFs past, most notably

Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format

+1 At 11:01 AM 7/5/2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote: I have seen some folks arguing that we should make XML2RFC normative and mandatory. If they can figure out how to automatically and accurate convert the other mechanisms people use, then that can be considered. Otherwise, mandating would be inap

Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format

At 09:38 AM 7/5/2009, Colin Perkins wrote: On 5 Jul 2009, at 14:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems

Re: Native-SIP vs. Non-native SIP

Stella I think the answer to your question depends on your point of view. If a PSTN originated call connects with a gateway (i.e., a translator between two dissimilar communications or protocol techniques or methods) and converts that can set up into SIP - realizing that the SIP part needs t

Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management Board: Why?

Brian Taking a loose view of the OSI 7 layer stack for a moment - is there any group that's looking at more than 3 layers? Identity, as you know, can be at layer2 for link access sign on (the IEEE is addressing this area). There's identity associated to an IP address. There's identity ass

Re: 73rd IETF - Registration

At 10:06 AM 8/22/2008, John C Klensin wrote: --On Friday, 22 August, 2008 02:14 -0500 "James M. Polk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 05:01 PM 8/21/2008, Tony Hansen wrote: >> IETF Secretariat wrote: >> > Registration is now open for the 73rd IETF Meeting! &

Re: 73rd IETF - Registration

At 05:01 PM 8/21/2008, Tony Hansen wrote: IETF Secretariat wrote: > Registration is now open for the 73rd IETF Meeting! Kudos on adding these two new questions to the registration form: T-Shirt Size +1 but what about cookie preference? ;-) James Dietary Restrictions? Ton

Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings

This could be WG chair approved too, i.e., WG chairs provide a list of IDs that are permitted to be submitted that are involved in the IESG process (but only ones that have gone through their first IESG meeting). Not that many per WG should be in this state during any one (normal blackout) per

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

At 04:33 PM 7/17/2008, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, 0900-1130 Morning Session I 1130-1300 Break 1300-1400 Afternoon Session I 1415-1515 Afternoon Session II I support this schedule

Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!

At 10:28 AM 2/1/2008, Jari Arkko wrote: >Dean, > > > We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as > > meeting locations. > > > >Er... like Dallas or San Diego? Jari Dallas was supposed to be New Orleans until a little catastrophe called Katrina happened there and a secondary

Re: IETF Eurasia

At 10:34 AM 11/30/2007, Lars Eggert wrote: I'm not sure if there have been joint interims with multiple WGs attending, but that could make sense if there's a difficult piece of work that they need to agree on Geopriv and Ecrit had a joint meeting a couple of years ago that was mostly attended

RE: IETF Eurasia

At 08:28 AM 11/29/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That doesn't make for a "has to", but it seems like a good > reason to "choose to", from my perspective. I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked, why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Smaller meetings held

Re: SAFE BoF in Vancouver

At 05:54 PM 11/20/2007, Ted Hardie wrote: At 11:38 PM + 11/20/07, Colin Perkins wrote: >On 20 Nov 2007, at 19:07, Ted Hardie wrote: >>At 1:59 PM + 11/16/07, Colin Perkins wrote: >>>The following BoF has been proposed for the Vancouver IETF. There is a mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for

Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

At 05:18 AM 10/30/2007, Eliot Lear wrote: [I'm changing the subject and cutting off the references list as we seem to have changed topic.] Simon, > DS designates a mature standard. If you read the requirements in RFC > 2026 for a mature standard it is clear that few of the modern IETF > protoc

Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

At 04:24 AM 10/30/2007, Simon Josefsson wrote: > At 04:48 PM 10/29/2007, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>"Eric Burger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > One interesting side effect of the existence of an open source >> > implementation of a protocol is monoculture. We ran into a problem in >> > ifax

Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

At 04:24 AM 10/30/2007, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I admit now s/now/not all PSs have IPR attached, but this is almost certainly > intended to kill any IPR from achieving DS. Is that what is intended > here? I don't believe that was the intention, but that's a question for Brian. I disagree t

Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

At 04:48 PM 10/29/2007, Simon Josefsson wrote: "Eric Burger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One interesting side effect of the existence of an open source > implementation of a protocol is monoculture. We ran into a problem in > ifax year ago when it turned out that all eight "independent" > imp

Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt offers this text as a modification to RFC 2026: A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable implementations from different code bases have been developed, of which at least one is avail

Re: Travel Considerations

Unfortunately, using this logic -- I can buy a tank and get 2 gallons-to-the-mile mileage because the rest of the planet (or at least America) is still buying SUVs that get horrible mileage too, since there will be nearly an unmeasurable difference to global warming if I drive my tank or not...

RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums

t has - but in any case, it's not a technical rationale. Cheers, Martin -Original Message- From: James M. Polk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:31 AM To: Dawson, Martin; John Schnizlein; Andrew Newton Cc: GEOPRIV WG; Allison Mankin; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE:

RE: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

At 04:31 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote: And there it is. You're going to have to justify the accusation, John. Barbara S has already said she thinks she'll be constrained to deploying a system such as this - so it's certainly not a hidden agenda on her behalf. Other than that, it constitute

RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums

At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote: "DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple sets of requirements as documented multiple times ..." bologna "documented multiple times" means in individual submissions of which, zero facts were presented to substantiate If DHCP were so i

Re: Improving Security with Encryption

At 09:58 AM 11/10/2006 -0500, King, Kimberly S. wrote: > Fred Baker wrote: > What I would suggest is that people encrypt confidential > information on their laptops, and perhaps the entire laptop. I strongly agree and my entire laptop is encrypted. Perhaps people could consider suggesting to th

Re: Why are we still seeing new Internet-Draft announcements this week?

At 11:18 PM 11/8/2006 -0800, Ross Finlayson wrote: I'm curious: Why are we still seeing new Internet-Draft annnouncements (posted on the "i-d-announce@ietf.org" mailing list) this week? I thought that there were supposed to be no new Internet-Draft announcements from 1 week prior to each IETF

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)

At 04:29 PM 11/5/2006 -0800, Lars Eggert wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 16:06, King, Kimberly S. wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote: And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP intersects with security. The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF,

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

At 12:41 PM 11/2/2006 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Sam Hartman wrote: > I don't believe the new charter of ieprep working group belongs in the > IETF. I understand why we chartered it here, and I believe that by > doing as much work as we have done so far in the IETF, we have d

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

nfortunate for some of us, but as said is too late now to start changing it again. In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will circulate them ASAP. Regards, Jordi > De: "James M.

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

At 04:52 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote: March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th. oops On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:19 PM, James M. Polk wrote: Mark I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems t

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

Mark I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an interim, where (loosely) 'interims shall not be within 30 days of the next IETF meeting'. The D

RE: Working Group chartering

At 12:55 PM 1/10/2006 -0500, Burger, Eric wrote: Also, I am a big proponent of microeconomics, which would have rational actors only put forth and push stuff clearly needed for products. HOWEVER, in the "highest" IETF fashion, I've regularly seen multiple folks from the same company arguing again

Re: Faux Pas -- web publication in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Mohsen Next time, don't mince your words. Be bold and say what you mean. Take a stand and voice an opinion, why don't you sheesh! At 07:16 PM 11/3/2005 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As of Wed Nov 2 22:47:14 PST 2005 the "Restaurant Guide" in http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-64.html

RE: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

At 05:35 PM 10/13/2005 -0700, 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? and below 35 or 40? ;-) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

Re: Cost vs. Benefit of Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture Area

I agree with Melinda here regarding scaling is an issue *on* the ADs in those areas and that certain WGs in the Transport area are simply not transport related. I believe those WGs need to be moved out to another area of common focus. We have a critical mass of those WGs in the Apps and Transpo

Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI)Area

At 04:35 PM 9/19/2005 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/19/05 4:23 PM, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think all areas in the IETF are more-or-less defined as "core of the > area" + "what is closely linked to the core" + "what fits less badly there > than elsewhere" - ECRI

RE: IETF 63 On-line Survey

At 11:56 AM 8/18/2005 -0400, Nelson, David wrote: James M. Polk writes... > Few people talk during sessions, and those that do, know to sit where they > can readily get to a mic to make a point. Yes, but sometimes there's a choice to be made between sitting where there is easy acce

Re: IETF 63 On-line Survey

At 06:25 AM 8/18/2005 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote: In my working group I would say that a bigger factor related to the improved ability to hold a technical discussion were the four floating microphones. floating mics are a bad idea for many reasons - each getting worse with room and or audienc

Re: 63rd IETF Facilities Update

room 342 had dozens of power strips (all active), but the Havane room has about 10, and all are dead (no power) At 03:19 AM 8/1/2005 -0500, Adam Roach wrote: IETF Secretariat wrote: Power will be provided in the breakout meeting rooms, but will NOT be provided in the Plenary room on Wednesda

RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

44 -0500 "James M. Polk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about a NONCOM review situation roughly such as this: > > if there is more than one candidate that can do the AD > position for a particular area, if an active AD is one on the > short list, and if that AD has

RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

At 06:56 PM 7/27/2005 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: Phillip and Joel, --On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 13:32 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to see some other options considered. How about a NONCOM review situation roughly such as this: if there is more than on

Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

Spencer Let me add my agreement to this ID as a good idea with balance. At 05:18 PM 7/26/2005 -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote: This draft (available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt) does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership co

Re: Meeting Locations

Clint I hope you get an answer to this! At 07:41 PM 7/14/2005 -0700, Clint Chaplin wrote: How far in advance are the locations of IETF meetings determined? Is there any way to find out what the possible candidates are? I'm having to budget travel for the next year, and knowing where IETF 65 w

Re: Uneccesary slowness.

At 08:22 PM 5/14/2005 -0400, Will McAfee wrote: I think the minimum time before a document can pass to another standards-track state is ridiculously long. If an rfc is huge, I can understand that. But to sweep that over all of them? A two-page proposed standard can take an absolutely ridiculous

Re: New root cause problems?

At 12:45 PM 5/10/2005 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: Total time between IESG approval and publication, 5 1/2 months. And to get to Margaret's other points, I agree that these delays damage the IETF. It contributes to the perception that we are too slow, causes additional confusion about a document's t

Re: New root cause problems?

Adding to this - and I'm not sure this is the kind of thing you were looking for, but it adds to the overall problem - is that IDs timeout after 6 months (which is fine), but that includes IDs that are in the RFC-Editor queue process too. For example, look at the RFC-Editor queue site: http://w

Re: I-D/RFC source formats

At 03:20 PM 4/8/2005 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote: On Fri April 8 2005 13:55, Francis Dupont wrote: > BTW IMHO the best tool should be so painful that > I-Ds would be very small (:-)? The size of the boilerplate alone precludes that, unfortunately. And it gets worse next month when the secretariat sto

Re: SIP INFO and RFC 2833 support?

At 05:45 PM 12/20/2004 -0800, Madabhushi Pramod wrote: Hi all, I have couple of questions: a couple answers... 1) What is the latest draft on SIP INFO? RFC2976, no revision is currently planned (and I have asked the SIP WG in the last two meetings) 2) Is it mandatory to signal DTMF via SIP INFO?

Re: List of Old Standards to be retired

I'm initially really surprised 1518/1519 is on this list. Wasn't there recent talk (like last week) of extending CIDR? And if this is true, shouldn't that work be completed before the existing docs are moved out to the pasture? At 12:46 PM 12/16/2004 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: Hello, This is an u

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

At 06:39 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Fred Baker wrote: At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote: We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate. D

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

At 06:44 PM 11/16/2004 -0500, Mike S wrote: At 05:23 PM 11/16/2004, James M. Polk wrote... >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirement s-00.txt > >I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area... Morals exist at layer 3, and are therefor

draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area... The Application of General Internet specifications should consider the Operations and Management of the Security surrounding Transport of morality co

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

John Good rant! I agree with each of your concerns, and ask too for discussion on what was brought up in your message. At 09:02 AM 10/18/2004 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months between meetings? Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG a

Re: hop-by-hop and router alert options [Re: Question about use of RSVP in Production Networks]

Pekka While it is clear your distaste for RSVP, you haven't stated anything other than handwave why RSVP is so bad ("in the first place"). You mention there were mistakes and a BB will fix them, but you don't list a set of mistakes RSVP made for folks to digest. I don't know if you think they ar

Re: T-shirts, and some suggestions for future ietf meetings

At 01:00 AM 8/6/2004 -0400, Tony Hansen wrote: The first time in recent years that we almost didn't have a sponsor was in Adelaide (IETF 47, March 2000). So, what happened? In true IETF fashion, a bar BOF met, designed a T-shirt, and made arrangements with a T-shirt shop a couple of blocks from

Re: Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies

At 10:42 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: James M. Polk wrote: I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to catch this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is time to address it now. Given that both need to define different tags (XML

Re: [Geopriv] Comments on draft-ietf-pidf-lo

At 10:06 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: Based on suggestions by Brian Rosen, I'd like to propose three additional civic location elements for this document: - BLDG (building), e.g., "Empire State Building" I think "LMK" covers this (which is already defined), and is different than

Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies

At 10:13 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: James M. Polk wrote: In reviewing the pidf-lo-02 and the civil-02 IDs, I have discovered minor inconsistencies. Please note that the labels in the column 'NENA' refer to the NENA 02-010 data element labels. Neither FLR or PC are