entry
issues.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
-- Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:01 AM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: I-D
-- ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Well said Barry!
From: Barry Leiba
My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation
and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure
how realistic they are. Without getting overly into
While I applaud the sentiment, I believe as written this is an unfortunate
and undesirable constraint.
Something along the lines of:
The IETF should endevour to choose venues where all participants who
choose to can attend the meeting
would seem to capture the goal as a goal.
Yours,
Joel
: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:16:34 -0500
Para: 'Marshall Eubanks' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-
04.txt
Marshall,
RFCs
, below-in line.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Barry Leiba [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Fecha: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:30:34 -0500
Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
So
, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:28:38 -0500
Para: IETF list ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi,
Here
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Richard Shockey wrote:
This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is
directly within their oversight and charter.
What is the relationship of this document to the IAOC?
I agree that these are
]
-- On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
-- Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:27 PM
-- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: I-D
-- ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
--
-- Speaking just for myself :
--
-- I think that there is a strong benefit to having an agreed
So, could people please review it for errors and omissions?
My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation
and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure
how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's
please not), I think they reflect a
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
It is broken, anyone that has proposed to host an IETF meeting know it. What
you can read in the actual web page about hosting a meeting is not correct
in the reality, and can't be 100% subjective (yes there will be a decision
at the end, and that imply certain degree of subjectivity, but a
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Well said Barry!
From: Barry Leiba
My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation
and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure
how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi,
Here is the original announcement and the IETF URL.
Comments please !
I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not
formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat.
In fact that should be made explicit that nothing in this document
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Richard Shockey wrote:
This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is
directly within their oversight and charter.
What is the relationship of this document to the IAOC?
I agree that these are valid points. Spending cycles on this document
At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote:
It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance.
Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
Ietf
From: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote:
It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over
substance.
Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC?
Well, backing up slightly ...
How much of our process stuff
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your comments.
See my response below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:28:38 -0500
Para: IETF list ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue
Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:43:42 -0800
Para: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF list ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote
PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:01:32 -0600
Para: IETF list ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
From: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote:
It's a classic example of the current IETF
: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF list ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote:
It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over
substance.
Fully agree. What
Jordi,
Unlike several others and their comments, there are significant
parts of this I find useful, at least in terms of identifying
issues that should be examined. There are several other parts
of it with which I disagree. And, ultimately, the presentation
of a list of suggestions without
,
Jordi
De: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:00:10 -0500
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Jordi,
Unlike several others
J
I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not
formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat.
My personal view is that this should be an Informational document, as a
guideline of the selection criteria, as I already tried to describe in the
document.
There should be
: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:36:21 -0500
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
J
I'm assuming this is going
John C Klensin wrote:
Jordi,
Unlike several others and their comments, there are significant
parts of this I find useful, at least in terms of identifying
issues that should be examined. There are several other parts
of it with which I disagree. And, ultimately, the presentation
of a list of
--On Friday, 20 January, 2006 04:30 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
I understand your points and somehow agree on some of them.
I can try to establish a prioritization if that can help, and
certainly I will be happy to keep updating the document if at
the
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
Author(s) : J. Palet
Filename : draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Pages : 18
Date
27 matches
Mail list logo
