Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuture mee ting of the IETF

Hi, I think Steve has captured the core of the issue in this mail. I think his reasoning is the exact reason why we should go to Beijing with a positive attitude and have a great meetin in Beijing! Cheers, Jonne. --- original message --- From: ext Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com Subject:

RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future me etingof the IETF

Everybody, How I read the condition text it is basically saying if the IETF breaks the Chinese law the meeting is over. Having it twice (once in the law and second time in the contract) seems to be just to remind the the meeting organizer the law exists as the law is for many people quite

RE: IETF74 T-Shirt Art Donated to IETF Trust

Hi, Though, I think IETF has been always in the lavanguardia of fashion, I think Henk is absolutely right. Let people have their t-shirt if they want to. As long as there is no risk for the IETF. Who would that hurt? The money goes for a good cause - making the Internet work. Cheers, Jonne.

NomCom IAOC position (Was:Re: On being public (Was: Call for Nominees))

Hello everybody, Sorry to be a little late on this. However, I think openness and transparency is good, and should be encouraged. Therefore I would like to tell that I'm NOT going to rerun for the currently open IAOC position, and I hope people would propose good candidates for the IAOC position

Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

Hi, I agree with Russ. I think the trust and the IAOC have a bit different focus and it makes sense at times have a different chair for the different positions. This does not mean that we couldn't go in the future back to the common IAOC/Trust chair, but currently the work split would make

Re: Last Call on draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6

, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi Ted, I agree with you on the notion that we shouldn't publish anything that we know already that will need fixes or does not work properly for the intended use at this point. However, I think it is completely proper to revise specifications based

Re: Last Call on draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6

Hi Ted, I agree with you on the notion that we shouldn't publish anything that we know already that will need fixes or does not work properly for the intended use at this point. However, I think it is completely proper to revise specifications based on operational experience - ever rather quickly

Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions

Hi, I agree with Vidya. To be honest, I really thought this was an oversight and not intentional. If the Security area has a similar split as the OM area, I think this really should be discussed. To my understanding, we don't have such split documented to any other area and I think this kind of

Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions

Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't notice them). I think this is a very good overview of the requirements needed for the IESG positions and gives a nice background to think about

Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions

Hi Brian, On 7/24/07 2:29 AM, ext Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonne, On 2007-07-24 01:10, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom rounds (they might have come, but I just