W.r.t.
Ensuring that the resulting text of the submitted XML source match
identically the approved ID does not seem correct.
It does to many people who responded on this thread.
Let me inform you all, then when we did the experiment a few years
back, I was monitoring/steering that
Based on the errors/warnings I get from both SMICNG and SMILINT, I
wonder how
how an IETF Last Call can go out for a MIB module in this shape.
I did not look at any MIB details yet.
I get this from SMICng:
C:\bwijnen\smicng\worksmicng mgmd.inc
E: f(mgmd.mi2), (90,38) A SIZE or range clause
W.r.t.
Based on the errors/warnings I get from both SMICNG and SMILINT, I
wonder how how an IETF Last Call can go out for a MIB module in this
shape.
I did not look at any MIB details yet.
I get this from SMICng:
Since SMICng is a commercial tool for which I don't have a
Yaakov, myself (as HUBMIB WG chair and proto-document-shepherd),
the editor and our AD have had some private email exchanges to
discuss how to best address the comment from Yaakov below.
We have agreed to the following solution:
- we do not change the 802.3ah terminology in the text.
the
I am basically OK with this document.
Some comments you may consider though:
- Should you add aa [TODO] to section 5.1 which states that
the editor of the document should describe the Textual
Conventions (if any) in the MIB module?
- I wonder if guidance is needed that they can leave out
I have read this document and can support it as an update to 4181.
Bert Wijnen
-Original Message-
From: The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 16 januari 2007 16:22
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181
Update to Recognize the IETF
Agreed. I had a few troubles on Monday in (I think it was monet
or one of those rooms upstairs), but other than that it worked
great!
Thanks to the NOC team and whoever else helped make it work!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
WHen I checked in they told me I would have free inroom
internet access.
I used it saturday evening/sunday morning and by sunday eve,
I did not yet see a charge on my account, so I guess it WAS/IS
indeed free.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Sam Weiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Thanks for review and comments.
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 14:05
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: David Harrington (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG
I appreciate that Adrian and others do care about not being an
elephant in a chinashop. But I see a very serious risk of going the
otherway where we crawl around as a mouse in-between concrete monuments
and are worried that we (as a mouse) would tilt a 1000 kilo monument.
First of all, the PR
Glad to hear it is not just me.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Stephane Bortzmeyer
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 13:41
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; 'Scott Hollenbeck'; 'Sam Hartman';
ietf@ietf.org;
Well said Barry!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 17:31
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
So,
Thanks Eric, and let me add and make clear that I (and as far
as I know ALL ADs) appreciate these types of comment very much.
Knowing that there are people who read the document, understand
it and find it useful is good input into our IETF review and
approval process. Much better than silence.
Dave Crocker wrote:
This looks like quite a good list. The only thing I would add is an
interactive submission tool that validates the xml2rfc document being
submitted.
Rather than explicitly penalize the text submitters with an earlier date,
I'd suggest providing a bonus extension
W.r.t.
- We can say that it's time to require XML2RFC for all drafts.
there is a variant of this that i think i like:
do not impose this switch onto those submitting, but change
the formatting language used by the rfc editor to be xml2rfc.
so, submissions in xml2rfc are highly
- Making XML-RFC versions of existing or new RFCs available
to the public.
absolutely!
I see support of this a few times (and that includes me).
I think that if you (we) all really mean this,
then I think it would be good to see if you can get it accepted
as an IETF (consensus)
These days, when a draft moves into the RFC editor queue, the RFC
editor sends a request to the author to send in the xml2rfc input
files if they exist.
Ironically, the *very next* message in my inbox after Bill's was just
such a request from the RFC Editor, for
review),
then PLEASE do offer your help!!!
Sooner is better than later in fact
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 01:03
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: On revising 3777
Do we have no serious technical work to do in IETF except discuss these
types of topics?
PLEASE
I see all sort of good technical peopel spending cycles on this.
Do you want to review some documents for me and report your technical
finding back to me and the community?
Bert
smb writes:
I've been pondering change tracking, in the context of copy-editing,
but I haven't come up with a complete thought yet.
CVS? Should the Secretariat make CVS archives available to WG
document editors? I've written a book and many joint papers via CVS;
it works very well for
The emails from Alex and Scott reminded me that I also
want to publicly announce that I will not re-up, in
other words that I will be stepping down in March.
I have enjoyed doing the AD job a lot. I have to admit that
there are also several less pleasant aspects in the AD job.
But all in all I
speaking as an individual participant.
W.r.t.
Is PESCI characterizing the current process or inventing a new
one? Is it about principles for the IETF or principles for
process change?
My understanding is that the PESCI effort is to come up with
a proposal for the IETF on how to deal/handle
Steve writes:
Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions to
block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a
Last Call.
Steve, I thought that RFC3683 is intended to apply drastic measures
(see intro, page 4).
RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the
Brian responded on this thread:
Having a non-cognizant AD press late-stage issues leads to the question
of why they did not pay attention earlier? If the topic is important
enough for them to delay the wg output now, why was it not important
enough earlier?
It seems to me that the
-Original Message-
From: Scott W Brim
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27
On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
what the toy shows after about a day is:
prefer nroff: 8
prefer xml: 37
This time I had to skip physical attendance of IETF62 for
personal/medical reasons. So I was pleased to see that ALL
meeting sessions were being audiocast.
I have followed several meetings.
Some were better than others in that some chairs were good in
telling people to use the microphones. Others
Harald responded:
--On mandag, januar 31, 2005 23:56:27 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So (assuming 5/8 for now), the text would look like:
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of 5/8
actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain,
protect and manage the rights that the IETF needs
to carry out its work.
/t
Better?
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Monday
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 15:21
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Contreras, Jorge; Harald Tveit Alvestrand;
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities
regarding IPR
At 12
The current text I now have for this in my edit buffer os
as follows:
t
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation
from the IASA, ISOC or IETF for their services as
members of the IAOC.
/t
OK?
Bert
-Original
So (assuming 5/8 for now), the text would look like:
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of 5/8 of the voting IAOC members.
That is what I now have in my editing buffer.
OK?
Bert
-Original Message-
From:
Thanks. SO this is what I now have in my edit buffer:
t
The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR,
including but not limited to trademarks, domain names,
and copyrights, that belong to the IETF.
It is responsible for
From Haralds latest text (below), the 2nd para reads:
In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the
IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or
IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether
appropriate
Lynn St.Amour wrote:
At 1:25 PM +0100 1/26/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Having seen some more reactions... I think we can solve
the general Ledger Accounts issue with a very simple
addition as follows:
section title=Cost Center Accounting anchor=cc-accounting
Scott writes:
not a showstopper but it woudl eb good to be clear
the text curently says:
Subject to paragraph 2 of Section 4.1, appointed members of the IAOC
serve two year terms. IAOC terms normally end at the first IETF
meeting of a year, just as as IAB and IESG terms do.
I
Having seen some more reactions... I think we can solve
the general Ledger Accounts issue with a very simple
addition as follows:
section title=Cost Center Accounting anchor=cc-accounting
t
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
-Original Message-
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 13:25
To: Lynn St.Amour; Carl Malamud; Tom Petch; Margaret Wasserman
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Lynn DuVal; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Resolution? #787 terminology and issue 794 - naming of
accounts
Having seen
: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:25
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: John C Klensin; Rob Austein; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Issue #788: Section 3 - Which functions should be done
in-house , ...
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I now have this text:
t
The IAOC is expected
I included an issue number.
The text had just made it to the list before your repost.
So I have added the suggested wording with Haralds adjustment
to the revision 05.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent:
John writes:
... snip a lot ..
I'd rather either
* Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give
the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited,
sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that
seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do
I like this text. In any event, it seems much closer to what
the community seems to want than what we have in the revision 04
document. So I have included the text suggested by Leslie,
with the understanding that I have not yet seen Harald declare
consensus (seems early for that anyways).
In the
Scott writes
All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
the prepare for RFPs seems futile (or at least *very* premature)
if NeuStar is to get a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald asks:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational
after this document has been approved by the process
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 18:42
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
There has apparently been no comments on these I thought
I'd
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 25. januar 2005 11:40 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection
issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely
and if, for example, a
Issue 787 is linked to issue 794
Inside 787 we have several topics in fact. One of them is
Transparency in sect 7
Harald (justified and) suggested to change the current text
Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
the financial and legal structure of the ISOC
Brian E Carpenter writes
Scott Bradner wrote:
harald suggets
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC may decide by voting.
looks good to me
Agreed
Brian
wfm
Change applied to editing
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 21:15
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Issue #787 - Transparency in sect 7
On Tuesday, January 25, 2005 18:01:31 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL
W.r.t. to latest suggested text by Harald:
So we have 3 alternatives:
OLD
Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
direction of the IAOC. The IAD is selected and hired by a committee
of the IAOC. The members of this committee are appointed by the
IAOC,
This text is now in my edit buffer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 15:23
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Consensus? #789: Section 5.6 - Financial reserves
Harald suggests:
The
I now have this text:
t
The IAOC is expected to determine what IETF
administrative functions are to be performed, and how or
where they should be performed (e.g., internally to the
IASA or by outside organizations), so as to
Makes sense to me.
Changes applied in my edit buffer as proposed by Harald below.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 14:26
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Discussion: #786 Section
TExt change made in my edit buffer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 15:35
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: re: Minor resolution: #793: Section 7 - transition of funds
Harald suggests
To
These 2 have been applied to my edit buffer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 15:46
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Legal review 4: Minor editorial
Editorial Comments from Jorge:
Changed
In addition, key contract material and MOUs shall
also be publicly available, subject to any
reasonable confidentiality obligations
approved by the IAD.
into
In addition, key contract
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Suggestion: Add to section 3, one paragraph before section 3.1:
The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions
that involve trademarks on behalf of the IETF.
Works for me
sfm too, and for now I have
I ahve made the change suggested by Harald.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:23
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Discussion: #822 legal review 3: Legal advice
The discussion
So... not 100% sure I captured the result ciorrectly.
This is what we have in rev 04:
section title=Divisional Accounting
anchor=divisional-accounting
t
Funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for in a
separate set of accounts.
Harald writes:
I suggested on Jan 13, replacing the last 3 paragraphs of section 3.4:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
Harald responds to Lynn
--On 16. januar 2005 19:34 -0500 Lynn St.Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following three terms are used in this document, and it is not
clear if there is intended to be any difference between them:
- IASA accounts (or IASA budget)
For IASA accounts in
W.r.t. these comments from Lynn:
.. snip ..
-- In 2.1
IAOC: Internet Administrative Oversight Committee, defined
by this document.
Should be IETF rather than Internet (especially with the current
governance discussion underway unless we really want to liven that
discussion up
Fixed in my edit buffer.
OLD:
t
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a unanimous decision,
the IAOC decides by voting.
/t
NEW:
t
W.r.t.
-- In 2.1
IAOC: Internet Administrative Oversight Committee, defined
by this document.
Should be IETF rather than Internet (especially with the current
governance discussion underway unless we really want to liven that
discussion up :-). I think the references in
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EKR wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and
Scott Bradner supported the idea:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced.
--On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 10:37:22 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*footnote: I think the document may be confusing (I hope not
confused, and I trust it isn't deliberate) as to whether all of
these pointers to outsourcing imply
-- hire an organization, with its
).
Anyway... enough about this as far as I am concerned
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Carl Malamud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 20:16
To: John C Klensin
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); EKR; Brian E Carpenter; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Consensus? #733 Outsourcing
Harald writes:
It seems that we are now more-or-less agreed that less is more when it
comes to quorum, majority rules and so on - here's a proposed minimum
version of what is in section 3.4:
3.4 IAOC Decision Making
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If
Good plan!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:07
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Timeline for further work on IASA BCP
At the moment, there are 19 open tickets in the issue
OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike.
So that is:
t
The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering
reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement
shall generally be for exceptional cases only.
/t
OK, I have use this text (as 2 paragraphs) from Haralds email
below
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:41
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: V2 Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC
Harald writes:
It also seems to me that it fits better if
rearranged a bit. What about this?
The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
members to serve as the chair of the IAOC.
The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
activities
Scott reponds to Jonne:
Jonne asks:
would
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the
IOAC.
do the trick then?
works for me
personal
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 18:41
To: Scott Bradner; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, 7 - Miscellaneous editorial
--On Sunday, 02 January, 2005 08:19
bert asks:
The current text in section 3, 1st para states
The IAOC consists of volunteers,
does that not say enough?
I'd say no - volunteers can get paid in some cases
Sure... sometimes they also get a bottle of wine with Xmas.
Should we add clear text about that too?
I really wonder if you start re-imbursing, then I want to be
re-imbursed too for my IESG services!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 19:57
To: ext Scott
Kurtis comments on text suggested by Bernard:
On 2004-12-09, at 17.02, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Suggest this be rewritten to:
The IAOC is accountable for the structure of the IASA and thus decides
which functions are to be outsourced. All outsourcing must be via
well-defined contracts or
Responding to the items/topics that have been recorded as issue 727
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 20:54
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Last Call Comments on
Inline
-Original Message-
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:53:32 -0500
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt
...
behalf of the IASA at the direction of the IAOC. The IAD is likely
to draw on financial,
Issue 734 and 747 seem to be about the same thing.
Editors have accepeted that s/account/accounts/
and that change has been made in my editing buffer.
So I think both tickets can change to Document updated.
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
I don't think that there is a substantive issue here, just an
editorial one. What about just reusing Jorge's text, like this:
Margaret said (quoting the draft):
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA
and the IETF all rights in data needed to satisfy
, because
accountancy and auditing cost real money.
Brian
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Inline
Biran answered me:
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I am not a real accountant and kind of simple-minded.
So when you say:
Lynn == Lynn St Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Lynn,
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 01:45
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: IASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6
Bert, Rob,
please find below comments on reserves.
So I have made (for now) this change.
OLD:
5.4 Other ISOC Support
Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified
in Section 6. ISOC shall credit the appropriate IASA accounts at
least quarterly.
NEW:
5.4 Other ISOC Support
Other ISOC support
I think we need more discussion on this.
But let me add that Lynn had also made suggestions
as discussed in issue 740.
Maybe we should merge the 2 issues into one?
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday,
As a result of the discussion I have updated the text
and it currently looks as follows in my edit buffer:
section title=IASA Budget Process anchor=iasa-budget-process
t
While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's
administrative needs, its
So I have add (in my editing buffer)
t
The IAOC shall establish and publish rules to
handle conflict of interest situations.
/t
In the context it looks as folllows:
t
The IAOC decides
I have seen some discussion on this but I have not seen a consensus
call by Harald. In fact I think Harald said that most of the
issues on finances and reserves still need more discussion.
SO I have not made a change yet.
I know we DO want something about GAAP in the document,
that seems pretty
Scoot, I believe that we have also resolved that issue
implicitly by resolving issue749. Do you agree?
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:01
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Consensus? Issue #744: Section 3 - Backup mechanism for IAD
Closing off what I think is already
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:49
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Consensus? Minor issue #730: Section 2.2 - Authority over
standards development
Old text:
2.
the other (or at least another) Scott suggested:
... shall be structured to enable a clean transition in the event that
the IETF community decides that such a transition is required and
documents its consensus in a formal document (currently called a BCP).
I like this - it deals
Done in my working copy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:20
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Consensus? Minor issue #743: Defining the IETF
I'm trying to go through the list of
Harald responds to Scott:
Scott suggested that:
I think it must be made clear that all IAOC decision making involves
all IAOC members then in office - not just a subset that might show up
at a meeting or on a phone call
maybe add: All IAOC decision making includes all IAOC members
Harald proposed:
Margaret pointed out that the term officer has definitions in some
contexts that aren't appropriate for the IAD, and suggested
we don't use it.
It's only used once in the document, so it's not a large change.
Proposed resolution: In section 3, change:
The IASA
, December 22, 2004 14:52
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Issue: #748: Section 5.4 - Quarterly deposits
inappropriate
Hi Bert,
At 11:13 PM +0100 12/21/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
May be I need to explain
But since we have already stated that in principles, I think we can leave
it to the IAD to make sure this is part of the appropriate structures.
Suggested resolution: Delete the sentence from the third
paragraph (after the Editor's notes):
ISOC shall create appropriate
Brian writes:
Just another thought on this. Perhaps there is a formulation
something like
IAOC decisions are taken by a majority of the non-conflicted IAOC
members who are available to vote in person, by teleconference, or
by email.
so that we avoid defining a specific quorum but
Margaret said:
Should the IAOC maintain a web site that lists its members and
their e-mail addresses?
The discussion was a resounding YES (as part of the IETF
website), but
this seems the wrong level of detail for the BCP.
I suggest that we make no changes to address this issue,
Harald writes:
I think the discussion on issue #715 ended up with a clear
consensus that
the IAOC email archives should NOT be publicly available.
I do not think any change to the document is needed.
OK?
wfm
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
Harald responds:
Margaret wrote, quoting the BCP:
5.2 IETF Meeting Revenues
Meeting revenues are an important source of funds for IETF functions.
The IAD, in consultation with the IAOC, sets the meeting fees as part
of the budgeting process. All meeting revenues shall be credited to
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
