--On Friday, June 08, 2012 12:49 -0700 Paul Hoffman
paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
I am supporting not putting anything about appeals to the ISOC
Board in the Tao. They do not apply to novices.
Paul, that suggests something else which the Tao does sort of
say but maybe not clearly enough in
To be fair, nearly half the attendees come from that continent. Even when the
meetings are held in Taipei or Paris.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy
Bush
Sent: 10 June 2012 03:33
To: Glen Zorn
Cc: IETF Disgust
Subject: Re:
The intended rotation cycle is still 1-1-1 for NA-EU-AP regions, but
it's all dependent on finding suitable and available venues and
willing hosts and sponsors. Changing the text of the document would
imply a change in policy or normal state of things which there
hasn't been.
Hmm. So a
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, John Levine wrote:
Old:
Currently, the IETF meets in North America, Europe, and Asia,
approximately once a year in each region.
New:
Currently, the IETF meets in North America, Europe, and Asia. The
intention is to meet once a year in each region,
Currently, the IETF meets in North America, Europe, and Asia. The
intention is to meet once a year in each region, although due to
scheduling issues there are often more meetings in North America
and fewer in Asia.
s/intention/intent/
Looks like this didn't get through the first time.
From: Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: glenz...@cmail.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of
IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to
Informational RFC
Date: Sat,
A quick check of the Upcoming IETF Meetings calendar
(http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html) shows that the next
meeting in Asia is scheduled for November 2015, while the last was
November 2011. How does a 4 year gap map to approximately once a
year?
this winter we are meeting in
The intended rotation cycle is still 1-1-1 for NA-EU-AP regions, but
it's all dependent on finding suitable and available venues and
willing hosts and sponsors. Changing the text of the document would
imply a change in policy or normal state of things which there
hasn't been.
Ole
Ole J.
On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 18:09 -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
The intended rotation cycle is still 1-1-1 for NA-EU-AP regions, but
it's all dependent on finding suitable and available venues and
willing hosts and sponsors. Changing the text of the document would
imply a change in policy or normal
Sigh.
These multiple threads are, IMO, a wonderful exposition of how
the IETF can waste a tremendous amount of collective time and
energy fine-tuning a document and/or procedures by a very large
committee. If nothing else, the process often leads to victory
by exhaustion as people just give up,
On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
• It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC
Board is the
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
just to be clear - saying final appellate avenue in the standardization
process. could be read as meaning
that a appeal of a technical decision could be made to the ISOC Board and
that is not the case -
this is why I used different
All,
Based on this explanation from Scott I withdraw my suggestion. Text can
stay as it is.
Eliot
On 6/8/12 9:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
wfm
On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
just to be clear - saying final appellate avenue in the standardization
process. could be read as meaning
that a appeal of a technical decision could be made to the ISOC Board and
that
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 16:09 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
• The Tao mentions that we meet once a year in each region. I don't
think that's true for Asia at this point. The text might call out that we
meet where there are participants, or words that the IAOC might provide.
It
On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
• I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in some way
out of date. I don't know whether this is true, but if it is, the reference
should be removed.
As others pointed out, it is a BCP, it is the only BCP we have that
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
• It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC
Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization process. In this
way it may also make sense to move
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
• It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC
Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization
On 5/31/12 02:05 , Klaas Wierenga wrote:
On 5/31/12 10:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say yes, I found that made the document
On May 31, 2012:6:36 PM, at 6:36 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or
measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they
understand everything the Americans are
On May 31, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again.
http://ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order
You're correct that NTIA wants to pay someone to do the protocol parameter
job.
Err, pay isn't the right word here: it's a zero
Hi,
I agree with much of what Peter Saint-Andre wrote. In addition I
suggest the following changes:
* I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in some way
out of date. I don't know whether this is true, but if it is, the
reference should be removed.
* It's probably
On 2012-05-31 07:22, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
* I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in some way
out of date. I don't know whether this is true,
That sound like somebody's personal opinion, but it is still a BCP
and therefore still represents IETF consensus.
but if
On 2012-05-31 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Overall I continue to think that this is a helpful document, as were its
predecessors.
That said, I would assume that many potential readers of this document
are not native English speakers. Thus I suggest that the more colloquial
words and
On 5/31/2012 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The informal
style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it.
Let's separate use of colloquial language from overall writing style.
It is possible to write in an
3.2.4. IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
The core registrar for the IETF's activities is the IANA (see
http://www.iana.org). Many Internet protocols require that someone
keep track of protocol items that were added after the protocol came
out. Typical examples of the
On 2012-05-31 07:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2012 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The
informal
style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it.
Let's separate use of colloquial language from overall
On 5/31/2012 9:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I actually have no evidence either way; that's why I suggested asking
some of them;-)
1. Reliance on self-reporting for such things is methodologically
problematic. It presumes a degree of self-awareness that is often
missing. For example a
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-05-31 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
That said, I would assume that many potential readers of this document
are not native English speakers. Thus I suggest that the more colloquial
words and phrases might best be changed to more
Hi Peter
I tend to disagree. I am not a native English speaker, although I will admit to
watching way too much American TV in my teens.
I believe most of these should be recognizable to anyone who has learned enough
English to participate meaningfully in IETF mailing lists and discussions.
On 5/31/2012 8:22 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
The Tao mentions that we meet once a year in each region. I don't think
that's true for Asia at this point. The text might call out that we
meet where there are participants, or words that the IAOC might provide.
The relatively recent change in
At 15:56 30-05-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task
Force'
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt as Informational RFC
In the Introduction
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say yes, I found that made the document less
useful then I'd be more convinced that all these
changes were worth it.
On 05/31/2012
On 5/31/12 10:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say yes, I found that made the document less
useful then I'd be more convinced that
On 2012-05-31 04:58, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say yes, I found that made the document less
useful then I'd be more convinced that
From: Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca
I think colloquialisms may often be as hard to understand as excellent
but seldom-used vocabulary.
Indeed - and now that we have this really cool Internet thingy (it's odd to
think that young people have no memory of what the world
--On Thursday, May 31, 2012 07:31 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-05-31 07:22, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
* I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in
some way out of date. I don't know whether this is true,
That sound like somebody's
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-05-31 07:22, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
* I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in some way
out of date. I don't know whether this is true,
That sound like somebody's personal
--On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 15:56 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet
Engineering TaskForce'
John,
On 2012-05-31 15:53, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, May 31, 2012 07:31 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-05-31 07:22, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
* I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in
some way out of date. I don't know
John,
On 2012-05-31 16:19, John C Klensin wrote:
...
Assuming Paul isn't planning to get this published as an RFC and
then immediately retire from the IETF and that we don't have a
delusion that this document will not need to be maintained and
updated as things change, I propose the
On 2012-05-31 09:24, SM wrote:
...
In Section 3.2.3:
Approves the appointment of the IANA
Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision?
The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again.
Brian
On 5/31/12 1:05 AM, Klaas Wierenga wrote:
As a non-native speaker I agree. I think colloquial is fine. The one
thing causes me some trouble is all the references that Americans make
to sports that nobody in the civilized world cares about ;-) (left
field, Hail Mary passes etc.) But I think the
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say yes, I found that made the document less
useful then I'd be more convinced that all these
changes
On May 31, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say yes, I found that made the document less
useful
On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or
measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they
understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-)
I don't really have any issues
On 5/31/12 15:36 , Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or
measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if
they understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa
Do we spell Standardization with and s or a z?
Yez.
R's,
John
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-05-31 09:24, SM wrote:
...
In Section 3.2.3:
Approves the appointment of the IANA
Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision?
The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again.
Brian
See e.g.
On May 31, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-05-31 09:24, SM wrote:
...
In Section 3.2.3:
Approves the appointment of the IANA
Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision?
The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again.
Brian
Overall I continue to think that this is a helpful document, as were its
predecessors.
That said, I would assume that many potential readers of this document
are not native English speakers. Thus I suggest that the more colloquial
words and phrases might best be changed to more standard English.
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task
Force'
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt as Informational RFC
The Tao of the IETF has grown a bit stale. For example, many of
52 matches
Mail list logo
