Hi Jari,
Thanks for your response. I am sorry I am still slow to respond.
I agree we are better off standardizing a new method at the IETF. I
think we should get rid of the AKA KDF in AKA' so that these are two
separate methods. Method-level negotiation is easier IMO.
However, if you are
Sorry for the last minute nature of this email, but I was checking with
folks active in the standards bodies that use EAP-AKA.
After some conversations and thought, I think that the goal of limiting
the effects of compromised access network nodes and keys (should that
be clarified?) can be
aspects of the problem, have the charter reflect the correct level of
scope (too wide or too narrow are problematic as we know), and move forward.
thanks,
Lakshminath
On 10/10/2008 5:15 AM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
The minutes (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes
certain aspects of the work there
(as the timeline in my previous email indicated.)
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
My perception and my understanding of some of the dissenting
opinions
was that some of those need to be worked out before creating
Thanks for the clarification Enrico :).
best,
Lakshminath
On 10/10/2008 6:27 PM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the
solution.
This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that there
is already
Brian,
Thanks for your response. Please see inline:
On 6/26/2008 4:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lakshminath,
On 2008-06-26 23:43, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
On 6/25/2008 2:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
Our fundamental collective job is defined in RFC 3935:
The mission
On 6/26/2008 6:35 PM, SM wrote:
At 04:43 26-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
But, surely the WG consensus counts as part of the overall IETF
consensus process, doesn't it? Please see the example in my response
to Jari. The shepherding AD (or at least the document shepherd) has
an idea
On 6/25/2008 9:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/25/08 11:44 AM, Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to hear others' opinions (I was going to put together a
draft with some ideas on how we might define these roles, but I want to
hear others' thoughts before I do
Jari,
Thanks. Some thoughts inline:
On 6/25/2008 11:30 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Lakshminath,
Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would
certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment
of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that
On 6/25/2008 4:28 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 26 June, 2008 09:41 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
And of course, individual ADs
have to think carefully whether a given issue is or is not
worthy of a DISCUSS, and sometimes they get it wrong. But
that will
On 6/25/2008 2:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-06-26 06:30, Jari Arkko wrote:
Lakshminath,
Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would
certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment
of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that
Hi all,
I am concerned by the following trends:
* Number of outstanding Discusses is growing. (Thanks to Jari's data)
* The extent of text changes as part of Discuss Resolution is increasing
(I have only anecdotal evidence on this; perhaps others have statistics).
* In some cases, members
On 6/17/2008 9:45 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for sharing this information. Now that the community knows
this, perhaps this will be an option when there are snags in the
process in future.
Folks keep missing the point: The current
On 6/13/2008 6:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
I note that, while the present situation and 2821bis constitute
particularly glaring examples of these misplaced priorities and
abuses, none of the issues above is unique to 2821bis. They
are really about how the IESG manages and expresses its
The DSRK can be scoped just as the EMSK can be scoped.
regards,
Lakshminath
On 3/19/2008 9:45 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Hello,
My apologies for being obtuse. This Mother of All Root Keys I've been
describing is what the EMSK Key Hierarchy calls the DSRK.
The HOKEY key that the ERP/ERX
On 3/19/2008 11:12 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
Dave,
I think I disagree with you on several of the details
in your discussion without necessarily disagreeing with
where you are going with it.
First of all, I think that the realistic view of the
possibility of something leaking is
Mike,
Thanks for your note.
Are you saying that there is text within 3777 that says that confirming
bodies should not ask for verbatim feedback but could ask for verbatim
questionnaire responses?
Consider this: what if the next nomcom were to be asked to provide
verbatim feedback by one of
Hi Joel,
Many thanks for your review. Some notes inline:
I am a bit under the weather, and so if I am incoherent, please feel
free to say so. Thanks.
On 3/17/2008 1:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for
On 3/16/2008 7:36 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
My apologies, I was going to leave this alone, but this ...
chastisement .. is off-target.
At 09:50 PM 3/16/2008, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Mike, whatever your personal opinion, based on the public
information many people have concluded in good
I have been a bit under the weather and responding to some of the
emails. I hope to catch up in the next couple of days.
On 3/16/2008 1:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Lakshimnath, just a few notes and queries...
On 2008-03-16 16:10, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
* Nominee lists
On 3/17/2008 7:23 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Narayanan, Vidya skrev:
All said and done, here is what it boils down to - any application of
EAP keying material to other services (using the term here to include
things ranging from handoffs to mobility to L7 applications) is only
Thanks Joel. Followup notes inline:
On 3/17/2008 6:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Thank you. Comment following your clarification.
Joel
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
The one thing that bothers me a little is the intended status of
this document. Given that the EMSK is entirely
Folks,
I spent the last five days listening to the debates on the nomcom
candidate confirmation process and the proposals to fix the process. As
much as possible, I tried to stay away from the debates so I can
carefully listen, understand and reflect. It appears that opinions on
the causes
I understand that there is work underway on the topic of revising 3777
and I have also had several discussions with various folks on this
topic. With no intention to undermine the work already underway, I will
briefly state some of my thoughts.
* Nominee lists should be made public. In fact,
On 3/13/2008 8:49 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Avi,
For what it is worth, this ex-EAP co-chair also thinks that
the use of EAP keys for applications is a very bad idea.
Why?
For a number of reasons. Take this from someone who has actually tried
to do this in the distant past and has
On 3/9/2008 1:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lakshimnath,
On 2008-03-08 21:12, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
Reviewers are not accountable for delays.
Well, at least for Gen-ART there is a deadline:
the end of Last Call for LC reviews, and a day or
so before the telechat for pre-IESG
On 3/7/2008 11:18 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I
On 3/7/2008 10:56 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Lakshminath:
So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART Reviews. Other
General ADs may have done things slightly different.
When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in
one of two categories.
(1) The Gen-ART Review
And my thanks, specifically to Pasi, Miguel(twice), Vijay and Joel, who
as GenART reviewers, provided thorough reviews of documents I recently
shepherded or co-authored, and followed up diligently after revised
documents have been published and sent a ready for publication or
addresses all
the
custom of producing similar reports (now I wish I had produced a report
like yours after I served as Nomcom chair).
- Ralph
On Mar 5, 2008, at Mar 5, 2008,6:05 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Folks,
A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
https://www.tools.ietf.org
Cullen,
Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your
DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I
appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
language is poor (they are both probably true), but could you explain
how one of
for though is to just remove
the first step for starters. We shouldn't have to ask to know what the
DISCUSS is about.
best regards,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 1:51 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Lakshminath == Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lakshminath Cullen, Lakshminath Thank you
that after the meeting.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Cullen,
Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your
DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I
appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
Hartman wrote:
Lakshminath == Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lakshminath Sam,
Lakshminath I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. I
also don't
Lakshminath understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes
sequentially (in
Lakshminath reference
Hi Russ,
Thanks for your response. Some notes inline:
On 3/6/2008 4:09 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Ted, Lakshminath, and the Rest of the IETF Community:
I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game.
The handling of reviews by non-IESG members seems to be an important
part of
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
Thanks Cullen.
regards,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 5:05 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I
have removed my discuss.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular
On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti skrev:
Folks,
A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report. Please
direct any comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will make a brief
presentation
Folks,
A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report. Please direct
any comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will make a brief presentation at the
IESG plenary.
Abstract
This document reports on the work of Nomcom 2007-8. The
Folks,
A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report. Please direct
any comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will make a brief presentation at the
IESG plenary.
Abstract
This document reports on the work of Nomcom 2007-8. The
Folks,
The nomcom has finished the IAB member selection process. The ISOC
Board of Trustees has confirmed the nomcom's selection of the
following individuals for a two-year term as IAB members.
Gonzalo Camarillo
Stuart Cheshire
Olaf Kolkman
Gregory Lebovitz
Andy Malis
David Oran
The nomcom
: 05 February, 2008 14:30
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'ext Tim Polk'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'ietf@ietf.org'; 'ext Lakshminath
Dondeti'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erx-09
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART
Folks,
The nomcom has finished the IESG member selection process and the IAB
has confirmed the following individuals for a two-year term as IESG
members.
Lisa Dusseault, Applications Area
Jari Arkko, Internet Area
Dan Romascanu, Operations and Management Area
Cullen Jennings, Real-time
(Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
Sent: 05 February, 2008 14:30
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'ext Tim Polk'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'ietf@ietf.org'; 'ext Lakshminath
Dondeti'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erx-09
I have been selected as the General Area
Folks,
As of now, the nomcom has completed the selection and confirmation of
candidates for IAOC and IAB open positions. We have also been working
with the IAB on the IESG candidate selection and confirmation as
diligently as possible.
Despite our best efforts, at the moment, we are
Folks,
The nomcom has finished the IAB member selection process. The ISOC
Board of Trustees has confirmed the nomcom's selection of the following
individuals for a two-year term as IAB members.
Gonzalo Camarillo
Stuart Cheshire
Olaf Kolkman
Gregory Lebovitz
Andy Malis
David Oran
The nomcom
:
-Original Message-
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:03 AM
To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] Last Call: draft-ietf-hokey-erx (EAP
Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol
Hi Bernard,
Many thanks for your review. Please see inline for some thoughts and
proposals for improvement of erx-09:
On 2/6/2008 4:07 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Review of draft-ietf-hokey-erx-09
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operations and Management
directorate effort.
Hi Bernard,
Thanks for the followup. Some notes inline:
On 2/8/2008 8:47 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Comments below.
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:38:30 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: OM Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hokey-erx-09
Thanks for the review Joe.
On 2/5/2008 11:26 PM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
In reading this draft (-09 version) I came up with a few questions and
comments:
Section 3 -
Section 3 is a bit confusing it seems that much of the text is section
3.1 (detailed description of exchanges)
Original Message
Subject: Nomcom 2007-8: IAOC Selection Announcement
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:46:23 -0800
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Folks,
The nomcom has finished the IAOC member selection process. The IESG has
confirmed the nomcom's
On 2/3/2008 1:23 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti scribbled on Sunday, February 03, 2008 1:30 PM:
...
There was also the issue of not being able to export EAP session IDs
(IIRC) that I referred to in my other message.
Hmmm. draft-ietf-eap-keying-22.txt says
EAP methods
On 2/3/2008 12:28 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
Dan Harkins scribbled on Saturday, February 02, 2008 8:46 AM:
Hello again,
Pardon my repetition but I have come up with a very valid reason
why naming keys using HMAC-SHA-256 is a bad idea.
If one wants to administratively remove all keys
Hi all,
Some of the reviews I have seen start with good things to say about the
document pointing about a few things that need to be fixed. Yoshi
pointed out one issue that he apparently missed during the WGLC. We
have been going back and forth on these topics and not really making
Hi Anthony,
I am sorry that the quality of the document is not up to your
expectations. We tried and the result was satisfactory to many people,
some of whom chose to explicitly say so. But, if you have the time,
please point out our errors and we'll work to fix them in the revision.
Your
Hi Dan,
Many thanks for your review. Please see inline for some notes.
On 2/1/2008 5:16 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Hello,
I believe this is a well organized and complete document. On
numerous occasions while reviewing it I made a mental question
regarding something only to have the
On 1/31/2008 6:23 AM, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:53:25PM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
... hence the
authenticator initiation of the ERP exchange may require the
authenticator to send both the EAP-Request/Identity and EAP-Initiate/
Re-auth-Start messages
On 1/31/2008 7:01 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Have existing EAP peer implementations been validated to work under
these assumptions? i.e. will they break? Will they see unexpected
EAP messages or content, and reject or discard the response?
Kedar noted from his
Folks,
The nomcom has finished the IAOC member selection process. The IESG has
confirmed the nomcom's selection of Ed Juskevicius for a two-year term
as an IAOC member.
The nomcom reviewed the IAOC's requirements, candidates' questionnaire
responses and community feedback on the candidates,
A couple of comments to be considered as part of the last call comments:
1. Some folks from 3GPP2 (Parag Agashe, Dinesh Dharmaraju and others)
reviewed the document and pointed out that IANA stuff needs to be
cleaned up further. Charles Clancy pointed out this earlier and we
thought we
Alan,
Thanks much for your comments. Please see inline:
On 1/29/2008 8:32 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
Reviewing the document, it looks very good overall. I have a few
comments and questions about Sections 1 through 4. The later sections
will be reviewed in a separate message.
Section 2:
Hi Ray,
I had a chance to look at the schedule for the next meeting and I
observed that you took the feedback about normalizing the cutoff times
into account (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/71-cutoff_dates.html). I
appreciate your prompt action on this very much.
Happy holidays.
best,
Folks,
The nomcom has been busy with the selection process over the past
several months reviewing candidates' questionnaire responses, processing
community feedback and gearing up to make use of the face-to-face time
at the Vancouver meeting as effectively as possible. We have scheduled
From my point of view, it can be any timezone as long as the cutoff
time is the same in all cases. While we are on topic, I propose to use
AOE as defined by IEEE (I think 802.16).
regards,
Lakshminath
On 11/26/2007 10:33 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Laksminath's note
Just in case you are not familiar with AOE, it stands for Anywhere on
Earth (See http://www.ieee802.org/16/aoe.html)
regards,
Lakshminath
On 11/26/2007 10:39 AM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
From my point of view, it can be any timezone as long as the cutoff
time is the same in all cases
be
a bit or a lot later in reality).
regards,
Lakshminath
On 11/26/2007 10:42 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:39:03 -0800,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
From my point of view, it can be any timezone as long as the cutoff
time is the same in all cases. While we are on topic, I
Hi,
I just found out that I missed the deadline for early-bird registration
and payment. I registered early, but was planning to pay just in time,
but alas the deadline has passed. I was thinking that the deadline is
later in the day, end of the business day Eastern time.
We have
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being Idea -- BoF-1 -- BoF-2
-- SG -- WG, I would be very disappointed and would chalk that up
under the law of unintended consequences :). I am hoping that Idea --
SG -- WG or Idea -- BoF1 -- SG -- WG in that order become the
norm (where SG is
,
Lakshminath
On 10/11/2007 11:02 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 11 October, 2007 10:03 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being Idea -- BoF-1
-- BoF-2 -- SG -- WG, I would be very disappointed and
would chalk that up under the law
On 10/11/2007 9:47 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being Idea -- BoF-1 --
BoF-2 -- SG -- WG, I would be very disappointed and would chalk
that up under the law of unintended consequences :). I am hoping
Given the confusion around this, let me try to enumerate all paths
(I will enumerate the end result as WG, but please substitute it with
Stop for the failure cases)
Idea -- WG
Idea -- SG -- WG
Idea -- BoF-1 -- WG
Idea -- BoF-1 -- BoF-2 -- WG
Idea -- BoF-1 -- SG -- WG
Idea -- BoF-1 --
Thanks Jari, Eric. Some notes inline ...
On 10/8/2007 12:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
snip
Currently this
document simply has it at the IESG's discretion:
If at any point during the Working Group formation process, including
after a first or second BoF session, interest within the IETF
Hi Eric,
Following up on this ...
On 10/8/2007 11:30 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Thanks Jari, Eric. Some notes inline ...
On 10/8/2007 12:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
snip
Currently this
document simply has it at the IESG's discretion
On 10/8/2007 1:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-09 07:30, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
big snip
My observation based on some of the BoFs I have been involved with
recently is that far too much time is wasted between two BoF
Hi Tobias,
Many thanks for your review. Please see inline for my thoughts on your
observations.
On 10/1/2007 9:39 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hello,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.
WGchairs, IESG and IAB members
Please forward this request to the lists you manage and request feedback
and nominations.
All,
Here is the link to nominate:
https://tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nominate
You may also send nominations or comments via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or [EMAIL
Folks,
The following is the IAOC's desired expertise in the candidates for the
open IAOC position. The nomcom is now accepting the community's input
on the qualifications required for that position. Please send your
notes, either as commentary on the following or independent notes to
Folks,
The Candidate Questionnaires are now posted on the nomcom website
https://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/questionnaire. If you are a
candidate and have accepted the nomination, please respond to the
questionnaire by Sep 17, 2007. Please send a note to me
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sam,
You said the following on BCPs on the EMU list recently. (The context
is irrelevant, I think, but please feel free to bring in the context if
you deem it necessary.)
I'd like to understand whether we can meet all the requirements of that
BCP
For some reason that sounded odd to me,
Please nominate your favorite candidates to the IESG, IAB and IAOC at
https://tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nominate before Sep 10, 2007.
Instructions are available at
https://tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/.
Self-nominations are permitted.
Nomcom timeline is now available at
I guess I'll jump in as well. I was reading some of the related papers
recently for a different reason including the ones on active networks
(thank gods they are history) and whether that concept is in line with
the e2e philosophy.
In any event, exploring one of your examples with the
Nomcom 2007-8 is accepting nominations. Please visit the following page
for details:
https://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/
You may also send nominations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks,
Lakshminath
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
are:
Lakshminath Dondeti (Chair)
Andrew Lange (Advisor)
Danny McPherson (IAB Liaison)
Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison)
Fred Baker (ISOC Liaison)
The Nomcom can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] The members of the
committee are available for discussions during the Chicago meeting. The
Nomcom office is PDR1
Folks,
RFC 3777 says the following about the qualifications required for open
IESG/IAB positions:
The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the
expertise desired of the candidates selected for their
respective open positions to the Executive Director.
RFC 3777 says the following about the qualifications required for open
IESG/IAB positions:
The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the
expertise desired of the candidates selected for their
respective open positions to the Executive Director. The
Folks,
One of the first activities for the nomcom is to determine the IETF
community's consensus of the qualifications required for each of the
open positions (listed in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ann/nomcom/1234/). Nomcom 2007-8 will be
collecting input from the community at the Chicago
Folks,
Below are the results from the random selection for Nomcom 2007-8. As
per our process, in the next few days, I will contact each of the
members to verify their willingness and availability to serve. Please
verify the results, and if anything is amiss you have until 7:30 AM US
ET on
We have 108 (please see Note1 below) eligible volunteers this year. Many
thanks to all of you for volunteering.
Below is the sorted (by last name) list of volunteers. The numbering is
final.
Date of Random Selection: July 13, 2007.
Method of Random Selection: RFC 3797 (Randomness sources
Following up on this thread, if there are any objections to the
randomness sources at this time (after taking my clarifications into
consideration), please do let me know. I need to finalize this before
the deadline tomorrow to stick to the timeline.
thanks,
Lakshminath
Thanks Suresh.
regards,
Lakshminath
(Speaking as nomcom chair in this thread)
On 7/5/2007 8:27 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Lakshminath,
In light of your clarifications, I have no further objections.
Thanks
Suresh
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Following up on this thread, if there are any
Folks,
If you have volunteered for Nomcom 2007-8, you should find your name and
affiliation in the list below. If your name is missing, please let me
know ASAP (email me and also please call and leave a voice mail with the
information).
I have, with the help of the secretariat (many thanks
Thanks Suresh. Good question.
My intention is to enter the numbers as I included in my email (and as
they are published by the various sources). The source code in 3797
includes a sorting algorithm and that takes care of the randomness
algorithm requirements; there is also an example in
Thanks Ole. You bring up a good point. I have taken it into
consideration before selecting the randomness sources. Lottery results
are archived for obvious reasons. It turns out the US Treasury
department makes the archive since 1993 available.
The archives are available at the following
Folks,
Please note the following correction to the Timeline posted on June 4th.
The current plan is to send the call for nominations soon after the IETF
meeting in Chicago. Aug 3, 2007
Send Call for nominations... Aug
3, 2007
Announce milestones
Folks,
This is the final call for volunteers, the deadline for volunteering is
July 5, 2007 at 12:00 Noon ET, 16:00 UTC/GMT.
Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/show_nomcom_message.cgi?id=1251 for
details on how to volunteer and which positions are up for consideration
at the
Folks,
As per the announced timeline
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/show_nomcom_message.cgi?id=1231),
which is 3777-compliant, the method of random selection was to be
announced on July 6, 2007. I am presenting it earlier for your review.
In the past few cycles, nomcom chairs have
Folks,
This is the Second Call for Volunteers.
If you have attended 3 out of the past 5 IETF meetings, you are eligible
to serve on Nomcom 2007-2008. Please volunteer and you may become one
of the voting members of the committee that selects about half of the
members to the IESG and IAB and
Folks,
If you have volunteered for Nomcom 2007-8, you should find your name and
affiliation in the (attached) list (below). If anything is amiss,
please let me know. Thank you for volunteering.
If you have not already done so, please volunteer now. See
Folks
Some of you have asked for clarifications on the time commitments of
voting members. BCP 10 has the details of the process and the role of
the voting and non-voting members. Here are some notes for your quick
reference on how it might be in practice:
If all goes well with the
One of the things I have been doing and will continue to be doing is to
bring work to the IETF that may be needed by other standards
organizations and in some cases is needed by other organizations. I
have done this or tried to do this in the AD sponsored route as an
author and/or document
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
