> "Charles" == Charles Clancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> to be an L2 identity. It can be any identity that's
>>> meaningful to the parties involved, and can serve as the basis
>>> for making authorization decisions.
>> As long as it's cryptographically bound to the L2 ch
> "Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think that having a single abstraction that can describe
>> what went by multiple names in different areas can be very
>> useful because it facilitates cross-area communication. And
>> missing an opportun
e time to
prepare for a decision but were unable to have that time because of
agenda changes, that might be very bad.
However I do not see the problem with using hallway time to try and
fine tune the agenda to actually allow working groups to make forward
progress.
Sam Hartman
Security Area Director
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> --On Tuesday, 15 May, 2007 11:27 -0700 Dave Crocker
John> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Were we to deprecate every feature in IETF specifications that
>> get mis-implemented a couple of times over 10 years, I suspect
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> If we are going to standardize a definitional requirement or
John> method -- whether it is ABNF or IPR boilerplate or something
John> -- we need to get it right as a self-contained definition
John> and then live with
Harald, I'm happy to accept your interpretation of the problem.
However it also leads me to the conclusion that documenting possible
reasons not to use ABNF's LWSP concept, or documenting implications of
that rule would be a good idea. I also believe that documenting
experience with a spec in futu
> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> Sam,
>> Ultimately cases like this should be evaluated based on whether
>> the final result is more clear overall.
Dave> What about protecting the installed base for the existing
Dave> spec?
I think that is not a
I think redefining the rule would require recycling at proposed. I
think it would be confusing and harmful to do so.
I think removing the rule would is allowed by the process (and would
require updates in referencing specs as they advance but would not
break anything). I think doing so would be
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Keith> it could be argued that the best thing to do is to remove
Keith> ALL of the rules from the ABNF spec, leaving only the
Keith> language definition and examples. (actually I think I did
Keith> argue this sometime around
> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eliot> Sam, I've reviewed draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-03.txt.
Eliot> In general I agree with the tone of it in terms of how to
Eliot> address these sorts of threats. However, I have a problem
Eliot> with its scope. The pr
I'm at an interop event this week, but I think I now get your concern
with host security and section 4.1 and would like to propose fixes.
Thanks for working with me to understand the concern.
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.iet
> "Andy" == Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andy> I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in an
Andy> open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw.
I for one do not wish for deterministic decision making in the IETF.
__
> "Andy" == Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andy> This is not an alternative. If you are not willing to make
Andy> your technical objections to a technical specification
Andy> publicly, then they cannot be part of the IETF
Andy> decision-making process.
At one level
this technology has
significant value and wish we'd found a way to publish it. However we
follow a consensus process for many valuable reasons and it is clear
that the necessary consensus is not present in this case.
Sam Hartman
Security Area Director
> "p" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
p> Sam,
p> While it is at each AD's discretion not to sponsor some
p> document (and not initiate Standards Action), I don't think
p> this discretion should extend to having a veto at the IESG
p> table when the document and community i
> "Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lakshminath> Folks, If you want the history of this thread, please
Lakshminath> see the SAAG mailing list archive.
Lakshminath> Thomas,
To be clear I'm not sure that I* opinions have been given special
treatment i
> "Robert" == Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> Date:Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:28:29 -0400
Robert> From:Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert> | Um, this train left the station a LONG time ago. RF
I'd like to draw the attention of the community to section 3 of
draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-21.txt. This text contains text and a
clarified model of the various layers in the syslog architecture and
new terminology for the parties.
I believe this is responsive to the ietf last call comments and
ck on that registration process. We
feel that in this instance, simple expert review is sufficient, and we
don't need registrations to go to a review list.
Unless there is strong support for the more complex registration
process in the draft, we'd like to go to expert review.
Sam H
>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeffrey> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Unless there is strong support for the more complex
>> registration process in the draft, we'd like to go to expert
>> review.
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also from the draft: "At least for the strong security
>> requirement of BCP 61 [RFC3365], the Security Area, with the
>> support of the IESG, has insisted that all specifications
>> include at least one mandatory-to-imple
> "Masataka" == Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Masataka> Keith Moore wrote:
>>> Also from the draft: "At least for the strong security
>>> requirement of BCP 61 [RFC3365], the Security Area, with the
>>> support of the IESG, has insisted that all specifications
>
> "Bob" == Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> At 08:38 AM 7/20/2007 -0700, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> No, an I-D is a Draft Standard. An RFC is a Standard. :-)
>>
>> -- Kurt
Bob> No, and No.
He just says that because under his rules he's probably published mor
Folks, it appears the IESG made an error in approving this charter.
In particular, while we requested that the charter go out for external
review and community comment, that appears to have never happened.
The IESG is figuring out how we want to move forward. The obvious approach is
to withdraw
> "Soininen" == Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Soininen> Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't
Soininen> remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom
Soininen> rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't notice
Soininen> them)
> "Jari" == Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jari> (I also thought that the SEC requirements were a bit too
Jari> specific this year.)
They are no more specific this year than they have been in the past.
The only change is that they were at least specific in a direction
that wou
> "Iljitsch" == Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Iljitsch> On 2-aug-2007, at 21:17, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> It was also interesting to open the Mac network control
>>> pannel, enable my Airport (WLAN) interface, and see the IPv6
>>> global address appear almost
> "David" == David Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Hi, The issue was raised during ISMS WGLC that there is a
David> difference between our use of the word authenticate and the
David> glossary in RFC2828. Since ISMS extends SNMPv3, ISMS is
David> using terminology
Hi, Eric, responding as an individual.
Obviously, I disagree with your basic claim that it is too early to
write a document like this. I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a
consensus call on whether we have sufficient support to be making this
sort of statement. If not, then I'll be happy to ta
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be
Paul> an Informational RFC coming through the IETF process:
Paul> At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
&
> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> Well, the difference is in part the IESG note. More
Eric> importantly, the question is whether the IESG intends to
Eric> hold future work to the requirements in this document. If
Eric> they do, then this document needs
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Fourth, lots of folks (me included) happen to find it
>> convenient to use NAT between my site/house/office and my
>> upstream provider.
Keith> do you also find it "convenient" that NAT has effectively
Keith> thwarted
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> At Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:12:51 -0400,
Eric> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Hi, Eric, responding as an individual.
>>
>> Obviously, I disagree with your basic claim th
> "Paul" == Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I do hope that we have consensus these are good requirements,
Paul> We absolutely do not have any such consensus. There was
Paul> barely any discussion during IETF Last Call. There was not a
Paul> mailing list for discuss
Ah. I must admit that I find the whole concept of informational
documents a heck of a lot less useful, but your reading of 2026 is of
course correct. I'll probably still end up treating informational
documents as close to ietf consensus statements (but not
recommendations) in my head because hone
> "Henning" == Henning Schulzrinne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> Rather than an IESG note or in addition to, I think the
Henning> author should clearly state, in the abstract, that this
Henning> is a personal opinion only.
I don't think my personal opinion would make a very
Hi.
Both your and Eric's comments need a longer response.
It was my intent to use strong and weak password equivelantsin the
same way as the IAB document. We agree on what the IAB document
defines the terms to mean. I'll go look through my text and clarify
what needs clarification.
I'm confus
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Keith> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> If we can meet the needs of 80% of Internet users with some
>> form of shared access there will be more addresses left for the
>> 20% with greater needs.
>>
Keith> with 2**128 p
> "Chris" == Chris Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Hi Alexey,
>> And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving
>> things forward, please share your opinion.
Chris> Suggest: Properly document comments and reviews somewhere.
Chris> Question: what's t
I think we should explicitly say that SGs follow WG rules.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> "Shumon" == Shumon Huque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shumon> And yes, I agree that a new properly designed version of
Shumon> HTTP Digest authentication might be one way to help. As
Shumon> well as the various zero knowledge protocols.
I believe that http digest plus channel bin
> "Ken" == Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What I'm really looking for is some form of official
>>> government communication on the subject (unless of course the
>>> hosts are the ones who are manning the passport control desks
>>> at the airport).
>>>
>>
One item in the proposed charter concerns me greatly:
The working group should also take into account other issues raised by the
problem working group and during the newtrk BOF as needed.
That does not sound narrowly scoped at all. It might be reasonable to
take into account these items as
Hi. For the past few plenary meetings, people have gotten up to the
mic and complained that we've lost track of what proposed standard is
all about. We take too long reviewing documents to make them perfect
and would be better off just throwing them out earlier without so much
review.
I disagr
> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eliot> Sam, As the person who most recently complained, let me
Eliot> elaborate on my comments. The problem I believe we all are
Eliot> facing is that the distinction between Proposed, Draft, and
Eliot> Internet Standard has
Hi. First I'd like to start off by saying that I think Carl's
document is a very good start for discussing these options.
I support the recommendations made in section 3. I believe they are
well justified and would be a great step in the right direction.
Section 3 talks about clarifying the in
>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good
>> idea. I believe that plenary time is full enough without
Two things brought up in this thread disturb me. First, there seems
to be the idea that we should be choosing where IETFs are held for
political purposes--to make statements for or against certain
governments. I'm not quite sure this was said or implied, but if it
was, I'm made a bit uncomfortabl
I'd like to express general support for scenario O.
I probably will not have time to read the document in sufficient
detail to agree with every point, but this looks like a good
direction.
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ie
> "Bob" == Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> The ISOC is certainly not perfect and has had serious
Bob> problems in the past. These problems have been solved and as
Bob> far as I can tell the ISOC is working well. I would note
Bob> that the ISOC was initially set up
> "scott" == scott bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you understand the open source position and disagree with
>> it, then there's probably little more to say.
scott> If the position is that the open source community can take
scott> an IETF consensus-based standard, mo
> "scott" == scott bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
scott> seems to be a reliable way to ensure that there are
scott> multiple understandings of what the standard actually is -
scott> I find it hard to understand who that is good for
Do you think that trying to describe a modif
> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Areas where a discussion might be useful would be to explain
>> why the open source community wants to do this etc.
Margaret> While it might be interesting to gain this insight into
Margaret> the motivations op
> "Eric" == Eric S Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> You've had two direct warnings about this -- the ASF and
Eric> Debian open letters. They interpreted IETF's passivity on
Eric> the Sender-ID patent issue as damage and routed around it.
Eric> If the IETF doesn't get i
> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> My focus is on knowing what the details of the jobs are that
Dave> we want done. Referring to the interface(s) is a convenient
Dave> technique for trying to surface those details.
Dave> Currently we do not have the det
> "Brian" == Brian Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive
Brian> suspension"/"no first use" clauses, do you?
There is not consensus in the free software community on this issue.
I believe the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) i
> "Lyndon" == Lyndon Nerenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lyndon> Finally, we need to address the issue of the MD5 "break."
Lyndon> I have held off from commenting on this issue until the
Lyndon> community has seen explicit evidence of the attack, and
Lyndon> the implications
> "Erik" == Erik Huizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Erik> My sense is that an IAB chair is probably very well informed
Erik> and will have very good insight into all the issues
Erik> surrounding the IASA. Therefore it makes sense to give the
Erik> IAB chair a vote.
The reason
> "Carl" == Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Carl> It seems to me that one of the goals of the whole AdminRest
Carl> exercise has been to move overall management responsibility
Carl> for IETF admin. and support activities (IASA) from
Carl> contractors to a "program m
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Bert, _Far_ too much detail. See earlier note about the
John> bank account material. I suspect that I speak for many
John> members of the community when I say that I want to get this
John> "admin" stuff fixed, and f
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> Quoting from section 3:
>> The IASA will initially consist of a single full-time ISOC
>> employee, the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), who will be
>> an officer entitled to act on behalf of the IASA
> "Michael" == Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> It seems to me that neither ID status nor RFC status are
Michael> appropriate for these documents. The ID series is, by
Michael> design, ephemeral and generally not citeable. The RFC
Michael> series is stable
> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Margaret> At 3:41 PM +0100 12/1/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Yes, I've always assumed there will be an MOU between IETF and
>> ISOC, both to recognize the BCP when we have it, and to make
>> explicit some of thes
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> but as I said before - I expect we will be close to failure
Scott> if the IAD proceeds on the basis of a close vote in the
Scott> IAOC. I'd rather that mininum vote required to proceed (in
Scott> those cases where a
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> section 5.3 goes on to say Designated monetary donations
Scott> will be credited to the appropriate IASA account.
Scott> a left over reference to a seperate account
To me this doesn't imply bank accounts; internal acco
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> --On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik
Harald> Levkowetz
Harald> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What about this text, (added to 2.2.6):
>>
>> "As a matter of principle the IAOC and
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> In some other argument in some alternate universe, I said
Harald> about the appeals issue:
>> I see three alternatives:
>>
>> - Individual decisions of the IAOC cannot be appealed/reviewed
>> by
> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> writes:
Harald> this works for me (my only problem is stylistic - it's
Harald> somewhat long for a principle, so may fit better in the
Hara
> "avri" == avri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
avri> And I don't think we want to get into a situation where we
avri> have one member of the IAOC appealing the actions of the
avri> IAOC.
I do. Or rather in cases where that happens, I'd treat the appeal
very seriously. Being reaso
> "avri" == avri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
avri> OK, I am open to the idea. And I suppose that the current
avri> appeal mechanisms would allow it.
avri> But in that case I do have a problem with making the barrier
avri> higher for appeals originating from a non IOAC member
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald>6. The IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual
Harald> right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and
Harald> create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF
Harald> activi
>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> --On tirsdag, desember 07, 2004 04:49:36 -0500 Sam Hartman
Harald> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alv
I'm not very comfortable with the appeal text in section 3.4. There
isn't a way to overturn decisions and there is no way to appeal
decisions because the wrong decision was made.
I understand why the current text is there. I understand there are
significant concerns about having either of the
> "Bruce" == Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:14:42 -0800 From: "Randy Presuhn"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Ietf-languages
>> Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED
I've been thinknig more about the issue of the appeal process. Here
are some of the questions I have considered and the answers I've
found. First, can I provide something I'd like better than the
current text? The obvious candidate is the text in
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00. This would be problemati
> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JFC> Tax aspects on donations will, most probaly in many
JFC> countries, call for donations to a legally incorporated
JFC> entity. What is the IETF legal entity I am to write on the
JFC> check and then claim for resulti
> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> In general, I support your goal of permitting free software
Simon> to fully use IETF standards. A few specific comments
Simon> below, which should be taken as encouragement to continue
Simon> and refine the terms,
> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott bradner) writes:
>> For IDN, I want to be able to extract the tables from RFC 3454
>> and use them in my implementation.
>>
>> For Kerberos, I want to be able to use the ASN.1 schema i
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> open from last version
>> I'd change "BCP publication" to "using its normal consensus
>> processes" (BCP is no magic term and may not survive the newtrk
>> process)
Scott> I did not see anyone speak up to supp
> "Lynn" == Lynn St Amour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lynn> over 80% of ISOC's org. members donate less than $10K
Lynn> annually and managing these in a 'restricted accounting
Lynn> manner' requires more effort and overhead. Also,
Lynn> organizations/donors expect recognition
> "Bruce" == Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce> If there really are only 24 items of less than 11 octets
Bruce> each, a trivial solution is to simply list them (with the
Bruce> usual ABNF syntax) as literal strings. That should take no
Bruce> more than a half-dozen
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Harald,
John> Sorry, but I've got a procedural problem with this. I-Ds
John> can't obsolete anything, even I-Ds approved by the IESG.
John> While "fiddle with the RFC Editor note in the
John> announcement..." ma
> "William" == William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
William> John C Klensin wrote:
>> Then these need the "bad" designation, not just the "not really
>> interesting any more" one. And that, presumably, requires a
>> "1828/1829 considered harmful" document, or at l
I think your proposed three changes are a significant improvement over
the current text. As I've said, I am willing to live with the current
text but do not consider it ideal.
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/lis
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> I suggest resolving this by adding the following text to
Harald> section 3.4 "IAOC decision making", after the first
Harald> paragraph:
Harald> All IAOC decisions are minuted. Minutes are published
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> --On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 09:42 -0800 Carl Malamud
John> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi John -
>>
>> Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a
>> really *strong* stance on protecti
> "John" == John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John>The whole idea here, I thought, was to set up a support
John> structure which would just work -- so that it could be
John> "invisible" to the IESG and never need to be discussed by
John> that group. (The problem, I th
>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> According to Merriam-Webster online: Main Entry: 2 minute
Brian> Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): min?ut?ed;
Brian> min?ut?ing : to make notes or a brief summary
> "Soininen" == Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
Soininen> x.x IAOC members compensation for labor, travel, and
Soininen> other costs
Soininen> The IAOC membership is considered voluntary. Hence, the
Soininen> costs sustained by the membe
> "Wijnen," == Wijnen, Bert (Bert) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wijnen,> The current text in section 3, 1st para states
Wijnen,> The IAOC consists of volunteers,
Wijnen,> does that not say enough?
I think it does. I haven't seen an argument for why more text is
nee
> "Christian" == Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian> Could you please pursue this rather technical
Christian> discussion on a specialized list, rather than the main
Christian> IETF list?
There is sort of this problem that most of this traffic is last call
comm
> "Peter" == Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It occurs to me that a
>> Last Call for an independent submission has an
Peter> added
>> requirement to satisfy, namely that the community supports
>> adoption of
Peter> t
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> I think this line of thought has died down without any
Harald> great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the
Harald> following sentence:
Harald> The IAOC members shall not receive any compe
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> I think this line of thought has died down without any
Harald> great disagreement..
Dave, I think that the requirements for a successful last call depend
on how much review and interest have been demonstrated before the last
call.
For example, I recently last called draft-housley-cms-fw-wrap. It
received no last call comments. What should I do with the draft?
Well, in that cas
> "Tom" == Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> I believe any individual submission should have a publicly
Tom> identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed
Tom> in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues,
Tom> hopefully resolve them, before last
> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vernon> If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow
Vernon> the IETF's processes, they would have taken one of the
Vernon> suggestions for the next step and temporarily (or
Vernon> permanently) retired fro
>>>>> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No, currently this
>> draft is in Ted's hands. It makes no sense for people to
>> withdraw drafts or to make any hasty
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Avri said
>> I think creating the procedure to avoid so called 'DOS attacks'
>> is, in effect, fighting a problem we do not have.
Brian> But we do not have a body responsible to the IETF community
Brian> tod
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> --On Monday, January 17, 2005 2:34 PM +0100 Harald Tveit
John> Alvestrand
John> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ... The one thing that I agree sticks out is that the language
>> of 3777 talks about firing *one* pe
301 - 400 of 782 matches
Mail list logo
