Hiya,
On 10/12/2013 01:02 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I*
> leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are
> there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they
> cannot _c
Hi Ralf,
On 10/07/2013 09:23 PM, Ralf Skyper Kaiser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it still possible to submit a talk? I would like to speak at the IETF/88
> and a 15-30 minutes slot would be sufficient.
>
> The topic of my talk is "Transport Layer Security in a Post-Prism Era".
We don't really schedule
Phill,
On 09/24/2013 05:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
> time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped at US
> Govt request.
>
> Lets kill all support for X.400 mail.
>
> This is still in use
On 09/21/2013 02:42 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>> I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
>> concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
>> discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for
On 09/20/2013 10:59 AM, Josh Howlett wrote:
> I confess that I am confused by much of this discussion. As I understand
> it, PRISM is not a signals intelligence activity; it only addresses that
> data at rest within those organisations who have partnered with the NSA.
> As such, improving protoco
On 20 Sep 2013, at 05:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached:
Thanks for getting that done
S
Hiya,
On 09/18/2013 10:22 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> With
> limited resources (not only funds, also students are nowadays a scarce
> resource) we must concentrate our efforts where the return for unit of
> work is larger.
While I sympathise, that "must" above is a choice.
Since an academi
On 09/16/2013 02:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I have doubts myself, doubts that I shared with the IESG that this
> question is really needed. Asking this question at the end of the
> process after the conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 was explicitly
> declared with each version of the I-
er the reason, the emphasis is appropriate.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "IETF Chair"
> To: ;
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 10:53 PM
>
>
>
> Here are some thoughts on reports related to wide-spread monitoring and
> pot
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:53 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
>
>> Here are some thoughts on reports related to wide-spread monitoring and
>> potential impacts on Internet standards, from me and Stephen Farrell:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/09/security-and-pervasive-monitoring/
>>
>> Comments appreciated, as always.
>>
>> Jari & Stephen
>>
>>
>
Summarising a *lot* :-)
On 09/06/2013 11:30 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> There is a whole bunch of stuff we can do
I fully agree. Some more detail on one of those...
We setup the perpass list [1] as a venue for triaging
specific proposals in this space. A few weeks in, we
have one I-D [2] (ve
On 08/21/2013 11:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The general point is that the new people whom we want
> to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat
> each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool.
Yes, that is a factor that merits attention.
But not the
On 08/17/2013 02:43 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>>>
>>> Thus, I think this is worth exploring, as an experiment, just
>>> like we started the day-pass experiment a number of years ago.
>>
>> I don't know what "this" refers to in the above sentence, but I
>> agree with everything else in your
Hi Sandy,
I'm not sure how or if it plays into the SoW but your diagram
shows errata handling in the publisher part.
Many people find the current errata process not that great, but
we've collectively not gotten around to figuring out something
better.
I think the possible consequence is that it
On 08/10/2013 03:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/9/2013 6:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> So some kind of statement that CBOR is one point in a design
>> space (as opposed to an optimal solution for some set of
>> design objectives) would be worthwhile.
>
>
Hi Carsten,
As a no-hats, IETF-LC comment...
On 08/10/2013 01:42 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> Specialized binary formats like this TLV format are invented a dozen a day
> all over the industry.
> Each of them has their own little set of unwarranted complexities, bizarre
> features, and litt
On 08/05/2013 12:31 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> but at least one anonymous jabber participant (named "Guest") did
> remotely speak multiple times at the mic on one of the RAI working
> group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I recall). I was
> personally ok with it, but it was awkward.
Ah.
On 08/05/2013 10:07 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> One such hoop might be acknowledging the (privately sent) Note Well message
> (thus equating XEP-0045 Participant with IETF Participant to some degree).
> Another might be that we tell them to go away if their XEP-0054 vCard
> doesn't include suffici
On 08/04/2013 09:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Finally: a deadline one week before the meeting is no harder to meet
> than one minute before the meeting.
Disagree. I often end up updating stuff late in the day and that
should continue to be fine.
Secondarily, its my impression that people a
On 07/20/2013 04:31 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Saturday, July 20, 2013 15:51 +0100 Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> But, even if the outcome wasn't a BCP along the lines
>> I'd prefer, I think such a beast would still be worth
>>
On 07/20/2013 04:06 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>>
>> Wrt privacy in general...
>>
>> On 07/20/2013 02:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> Any volunteers
>>> to get in front of the mic lines?
&g
Wrt privacy in general...
On 07/20/2013 02:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Any volunteers
> to get in front of the mic lines?
I'd welcome that discussion. I'd love to see us have a
BCP61-like [1] RFC on the topic of privacy and I also
reckon that that'd help short-cut a number of IETF LCs
and IE
On 07/19/2013 11:53 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
> the IMEI URN MUST NOT be included in messages intended to convey any level of
> anonymity
That seems both perfect RFC 6919 fodder and disingenuous at
the same time (how can a message convey a level of anonymity?).
I need to read the draft but this
Hi Bernard, Patrik,
Thanks for the comment. Checking that out now and will
get back.
Cheers,
S.
On 07/17/2013 05:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 16 jul 2013, at 21:42, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>> After reading this document, I believe that this document omits discussion
>> of an importa
On 07/11/2013 03:22 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>
> In iCalendar (RFC5545) we have properties to represent the organizer and
> attendee of meetings. A parameter (attribute) of those properties is
> "CN" - defined to be the "common name" of the corresponding calendar
> user. Obviously that is a single
On 06/27/2013 02:24 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
> > folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
> > it is done remotely, but how important is
On 06/27/2013 10:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
> Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
> Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
>
> draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligi
On 06/18/2013 07:42 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/18/13 12:08 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> The issue was raised in the IETF plenary I would have expected mention
>> of a followup mailing list to be made here on the ietf discussion list.
>
> Fair enough.
Not quite. My local ietf@i
On 06/12/2013 10:56 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
> Are the IESG people who disagree with you speaking for the IESG, or for
> themselves?
That's really not clear already? In any case, I was disagreeing
with Pete as an individual since he was wrong regardless of hats.
He and I do that all th
Hi Pete,
I think you err when you say this:
> A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an
> IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free.
In fact, you do know Russ. If you did not, then the above would be
far closer to correct. But in reality you do kno
A couple of minor comments:
- For some unfathomable reason IEEE people seem to call mailing
lists "reflectors" - that might be worth a mention. Section 4
otherwise seems repetitive.
- 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is
possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even
joining a m
On 05/23/2013 09:38 PM, Antonio M. Moreiras wrote:
> Hi. That's great news!
>
> I think that a meeting in Buenos Aires will foster the participation in
> our region. Including Brazilian participation. Probably it will be a
> great opportunity for a lot of people to participate for the first time,
On 05/17/2013 10:18 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
>>
>> On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> There is a proble
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
There is that. But don't forget that ADs mostly read everything
in IESG review and often comment. Even leaving aside DISCU
On 05/15/2013 07:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> So, what would you have me (and others like me) put on
> registration forms so that I'm not part of that undifferentiated
> "180 names"?
How about 7 densely worded paragraphs?
Sorry, couldn't resist:-)
S.
Joe,
On 05/14/2013 09:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> As important as the DISCUSS criteria are, there are NON-DISCUSS criteria
> that ought to be more carefully followed - including the point that
> disagreements with the WG or clarifications are not justification for
> DISCUSS.
I had assumed that the
Hi Cullen,
On 05/14/2013 02:58 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> I would like to see the whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria
> document and will stay within that (or change it if they disagree).
That I'm pretty sure is the case. When I started as a new AD
one of the first t
On 05/03/2013 01:59 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> If you look at the delays documents encounter (both in WG and in IESG
> review), the killer is long times between document revisions. Focus on
> understanding the *why* behind that and what steps could be taken to
> make improvements.
Good point.
On 05/02/2013 04:19 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> 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
On 05/02/2013 03:54 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 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 o
On 04/26/2013 10:23 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
>>
>> OK, pardon the cheap shot, but I don¹t think SDOs that have some sort of
>> stewardship relationship to the Internet should ever play any part
>> whatsoever in the facilitation of DRM.
>
> So it's ok to define protocols that manage access to serv
On 04/15/2013 05:26 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> We can continue to appoint groups with additional rounds of review, but IMO,
> they are scoped (and the IESG review guidance appears to back up that point).
I think Joe is correct there. Another data point is that we
asked secdir (who currently have an
On 13 Apr 2013, at 18:05, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Maybe what we do is ask some of the large network companies to fund a few
> research fellowships on topics that might be of interest to the IETF in the
> 3-5 year time frame for post-doc types?
They actually do that already. More of would be
On 04/13/2013 01:09 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> gender bias
...
> "western white guys".
It may be that the latter phrase is a common term in
north America, (I dunno) but fwiw it grates on me at
least.
If the issue we're talking about relates to gender,
then I think sticking to that is better and fi
Hi Lloyd,
On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D
> recommending how to write acks, I get acked...)
Thanks! Yours is the first useful thing anyone's said in this
thread that I recall. (Most previous mails made me
On 03/23/2013 02:22 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Sorry, Martin, but you're not describing how the IETF actually
> works.
>
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not com
On 03/07/2013 09:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Oh, and one more data point:
>
> The Internet-Draft archive also functions as a timestamped signed public
> archival record of our "inventions".
> (Which are often trivial, but triviality won't stop patenting of copycats,
> while a good priority
On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
>
> I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been
selecte
On 03/02/2013 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 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 w
Hiya,
On 01/29/2013 05:49 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> At 01:59 29-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
>> where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
>> the discussion, I'm going to con
Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is dead-i
On 01/28/2013 04:27 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> About the idea of an "experiment":
Right. The context being its an RFC 3933 IETF process
experiment.
>
> On 1/25/2013 5:07 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Responses to some points below but I'd really like to as
On 01/27/2013 11:19 AM, t.p. wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Farrell"
> To:
> Cc: "John C Klensin" ; "Thomas Narten"
> ; ;
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:47 PM
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 01/25/
Hi Martin,
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
> one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).
I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
relevant when consid
Hiya,
On 01/25/2013 04:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> If I correctly understand the above, it lies at the root of the
> problem I was trying to describe. This is really an experiment
> if the effect of deciding we didn't want to make it permanent
> was that we were at status quo ante, i.e., as i
On 01/25/2013 03:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> In the context of draft-farrell-ft, the above makes the idea of
> WG LC in parallel with IETF LC either irrelevant or bad news.
> If the WG Chair (or AD) concludes that a WG LC is needed, then
> the procedure should not be invoked. If a WG LC is no
Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:
- what's proposed is an experiment, it'd likely get tried out
a few times and won't consume any huge resource anywhere
- its optional, WG chairs that want to try it could, those
that don't can just
Hi John,
Bits and pieces below...
On 01/22/2013 07:04 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>
>>> The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take specific
>>> actions under certain circumstances in corner cases of the experiment
Hi Thomas,
On 01/22/2013 09:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really
> change my mind.
Ah well. I'm willing to keep trying:-)
> This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the
> trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don
Hiya,
On 01/22/2013 05:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> It puts more work on the community at large to review an idea that could
> have been either rejected or significantly improved in a smaller
> community before wasting the larger communities time.
Actually it occurs to me that there might be som
On 01/22/2013 05:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/2013 9:00 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> ...
>>> This is a silly idea.
>>
>> So you're in two minds about it eh:-)
Hi Joe,
On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> Hi Alexa,
>>
>> Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week
>> IETF last
>> call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under
>> the rules
>> o
Hi Ned,
On 01/16/2013 03:40 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Actually I think you make a couple of great points that ought be
>> mentioned in the draft about implementability. (No chance you'd
>> have time to craft a paragraph? If not, I'll try pinch text from
>> above:-) Now that you point it out like th
Hi Ned,
at the end...
On 01/15/2013 10:31 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> Martin Rex wrote:
>
>> John Leslie wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
>>> sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
>>> idea to me.
>>>
>>>
Hiya,
On 01/15/2013 11:49 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I hate it when we end up legislating for common sense, so I
> agree that for the experiment, this point could be put in the
> wiki.
Great. I'm accumulating stuff like that in the "changes"
section (9.1) of the working version [1] for now,
Hi Brian,
On 01/15/2013 10:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On balance I think this experiment is safe to carry out, and therefore
> probably should be carried out. There are a few comments below.
>
> However, I would urge the IESG to update the page at
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/process-experi
Martin,
On 01/15/2013 02:10 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> John Leslie wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> But more to the point, I think that in a lot of cases where
>>> the IETF has done a good job, there has been running code
>>> before the WG even started...
>>
>>This perhaps explains where Stephen is coming
Hi Olafur,
Thanks for the offer of text. Looking forward to getting that.
Just on this one though...
On 01/14/2013 10:29 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> That's also sort of like the point Stefan W. raised. And he
>> suggested:
>>
>> "If the source code has been developed
>>
Hi Martin,
On 01/14/2013 08:32 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> John Leslie wrote:
>>
>>I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
>> sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
>> idea to me.
>>
>>As a background, I'm a long-time believer in "rough consen
t; deserve a better community understanding...
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> ...
>> Well WGLC isn't part of 2026, and others have argued that that means
>> that there's no need for this to even be a process-experiment...
>
>I think the Narrative Minutes s
Hi Hector,
On 01/14/2013 05:05 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> I have two concerns and comments:
>
> - How will success or failure be measured? Number of appeal increases
> or lesser amount? I have a concern that once this door is open, there
> will be increase appeals and also apathy of outcomes.
Hi Olafur,
On 01/14/2013 04:39 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 10:14, The IESG wrote:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
>> consider the following document: - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with
>> Running Code' as Experimental RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans
f the goal were that all PS
RFCs would be processed this way. That's not the goal and
that's stated in the draft.
>A standard needs to be as simple as possible (but no simpler);
> running code needs to be complex.
>
>Stephen Farrell wants to "speed up" our proce
>As a background, I'm a long-time believer in "rough consensus" for
> Proposed Standard and "running code" for advancement along the
> standards track. I do not believe the two mix well.
>
>A standard needs to be as simple as possible (but no s
Hi Bernard,
I'm sorry, I have no idea what it is that you agree with.
Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
S.
On 01/12/2013 10:47 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> +1
>
> [IAB Chair hat off].
>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:25:38 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC
>> with Running Cod
Hiya,
On 01/14/2013 07:50 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>
...
> I understand that this is a rant. And, I'm not ranting back, even if
> tempted.
...
Yes, its tempting, but I'm going to resist since its irrelevant IMO.
...
>>
>> I'm not at all sure what concrete suggestion you're making, other
if that's wrong.
Cheers,
S.
On 01/11/2013 09:34 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> At 12:36 11-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> You mean rough consensus of the IETF I guess? Good question.
>
> No, I mean consensus as that's also part what is gauged during a Last Call.
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 09:02 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for replying to this "advise to secretariat" thread and not to the
> ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce.
> I have three comments, and regret that I have not followed all of the
> discussions regarding this
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 07:33 PM, SM wrote:
> At 07:14 11-01-2013, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
>>as Experimental RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision
Hiya,
On 12/16/2012 10:27 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 04:49 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> ISTM that you are of the opinion that anything the IETF
>> does to go faster is bad in and of itself because its
>> scary.
> It's not that simple, at least in my opi
John, Keith,
I really have to say that you both seem to be talking about
things that have nothing whatsoever to do with my proposal.
ISTM that you are of the opinion that anything the IETF
does to go faster is bad in and of itself because its
scary. This also seems to me to be an example of the
Hiya,
On 12/14/2012 11:09 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've been trying to say out of this because I think most of the
> suggestions are better carried out by AD-encouraged experiments
> and reports to the rest of us on effectiveness rather than by
> long discussions in the community abou
Hi Yaron,
I'm glad to see more discussion of this general topic.
On 12/12/2012 07:31 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to Stephen's
> "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document, in a
> semi-standard way, whatever imple
Hi Ted,
Thanks that change looks good to me. I'll whack it in thanks. I do
still like the word "reward" though so I'll tag that on too:-)
Cheers,
S.
On 12/05/2012 07:36 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Some further comments in-line.
>
> On Wed, Dec
Hi Ted,
On 12/05/2012 05:22 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Reading through Stephen's draft and the discussion to date, I think there
> is some confusion/disagreement about what it is having an implementation
> at this stage signals.
>
> One way to break up the work of the IETF is:
>
> Engineering--mak
Hiya,
This proposal only kicks in (as an option) after the WG have
done their job, however they choose to do that (within the
IETF process).
Later on, it might be a fine idea to try extend the fast-track
concept so that a WG has a structured way do similar things
but IMO that'd be better done af
On 12/03/2012 10:50 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>
>
>> I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be considered
>> as part of this experiment (free software and open source are not
>> synonymous).
>> Using the acronym FOS
Hi Jari,
I agree with almost all of what you say. I think we only disagree
in two places, and perhaps more about tactics than anything else.
The first is whether or not its worthwhile addressing the specific
bit of process my draft tackles. I obviously do think it is, even
though you correctly n
On 12/03/2012 04:41 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be considered
> as part of this experiment (free software and open source are not synonymous).
> Using the acronym FOSS and defining it as Free or Open Source Software in the
> doc
On 12/03/2012 04:21 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell writes:
>
> Stephen> On 12/03/2012 02:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> I'd really prefer if we'd talk about open source being desirable,
> >
On 12/03/2012 02:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I'd really prefer if we'd talk about open source being desirable, but
> not having it be necessary.
Yep. I got another comment to that effect as well.
I'll try address that (but that's not done yet).
FWIW, a working copy is available [1] that has a
b
On 12/03/2012 02:25 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Running code, when it's an organic part of the document development,
> is undoubtedly a good thing -- it doesn't make everything right, but,
> yes, it does do *some* spec validation and probably does help spec
> quality.
Fully agree. And this kind of
Hi John,
On 12/03/2012 12:29 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, December 03, 2012 11:28 +0000 Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>>> Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy
>>> specifications is a Bad Thing.
>>
>> Sure. I gue
t; and
>> "internationalization", but only found the former, and not not in a
>> discussion about how this proposal would make sure that cross-concerns
>> are adequately addressed.
>>
>> Regards, Martin.
>>
>> On 2012/12/02 5:12, Stephen Farre
Hi Stewart,
On 12/03/2012 08:06 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
>> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
On 12/01/2012 11:51 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/1/12 2:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> My reluctance to get into this is based on an opinion that process
>> change proposals with more words attached tend to just not happen,
>> so fewer words is better.
>
> I thi
Hiya,
On 12/02/2012 12:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> > I, and I believe lots of us, do want to encourage running code
>> > more than now. This is one attempt to help with that. Why not
>> > try it and see?
> Because as a "reward" for claiming to have running code, I think it's
> a terrible idea.
lly.
Ta,
S.
>
>Brian
>
> On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> ...
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft
>
>
he process. If IETF
> participants, especially those who don't attend meetings and long
> participated remotely or via mailing list, lose faith in the WG process,
> these process change proposals may expedite IETF work, but they may also
> handicap the potential of a proposed standar
Hiya,
On 12/01/2012 09:06 PM, SM wrote:
>
> Could you ask an AD to sponsor this draft and generate the Last Call?
Bit early yet. I'd like to know what folks think and hopefully
improve the thing via others' good ideas.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> P.S. Make the draft experimental. Add a one-year
1 - 100 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
