On Wed Sep 23 04:14:26 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Indeed, our own meetings are scoped and moderated,
You clearly weren't at the Codec BoF.
Well, heavy weaponry was declared out of scope. As was reaching any
kind of useful decision.
and disruptive
influences can be, and are,
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I'm not talking about incitement to riot, advocacy of terrorism,
expressions of racial hatred, or anything of the kind. As I have
expressed several times in this thread, I'm talking about discussion
of
technical topics that impinge on
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ben Campbell wrote:
Concrete example:
Would a presentation on how tor was used to bypass state controls on
news during the recent election protests in Iran be acceptable under
the terms of the agreement?
That would sound like a perfectly appropriate and timely
Speaking just for myself.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I'm not talking about incitement to riot, advocacy of terrorism,
expressions of racial hatred, or anything of the kind. As I have
expressed several times in this
I am going to assume that such a presentation would be largerly
technical, a case study with some political overtones, but technical
nonetheless. I would not expect this to get you in trouble, no.
A very basic problem with these sorts of assurances is that they are being made
by people
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ben Campbell wrote:
Concrete example:
Would a presentation on how tor was used to bypass state controls on
news during the recent election protests in Iran be acceptable under
the terms of the agreement?
That would
, September 19, 2009 16:07
To: Yaron Sheffer
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: China venue survey
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
I'm afraid that results of the survey will *not* prove informative.
The one pertinent question in the survey assumes that we have a
meeting in China
Cullen,
Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is
Beijing, although a lot of people seem to have assumed so and yet
more people copied the assumption. The announcent of the venue
is expected soon, within say 30 days.
But to the core of your question: The rotation would
On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is
Beijing,
Or Vancouver either, right? I assumed that Cullen
threw the city names out as straw proposals and that
the broader question is still valid - IETF 79 is only
a year off.
Yes, sorry I wasn't paying attention to that part.
Canada --- there are several options.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Tue, 22 Sep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Levity alert!
On 9/22/09 12:00 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Canada --- there are several options.
Indeed, Canada is a big country. How about Yellowknife? The famous ice
road would be open in November for IETF 79:
I think we should meet in Tromsoe, Norway in January or February some
year. The lack of sunlight would make us more productive, the weather
would prevent people from wandering off and missing sessions.
(I think I will get a high Narten score this week :-)
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and
Jennings flu...@cisco.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org, Yaron Sheffer yar...@checkpoint.com
Subject: Re: China venue survey
Cullen,
Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is
Beijing, although a lot of people seem to have assumed so and yet
more people copied
On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I think we should meet in Tromsoe, Norway in January or February some
year. The lack of sunlight would make us more productive, the weather
would prevent people from wandering off and missing sessions.
Dear Ole;
Why stay so far South ?
I
At 11:23 AM 9/19/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs.
We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality,
and (at least in the community I'm a member of) about
At 12:47 PM 9/22/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Cullen,
Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is
Beijing, although a lot of people seem to have assumed so and yet
more people copied the assumption. The announcent of the venue
is expected soon, within say 30 days.
But to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/19/09 10:23 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs.
We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality,
and (at
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Yaron Sheffer
Subject: Re: China venue survey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/19/09 10:23 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other
SDOs.
We care deeply
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:52 PM, HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS wrote:
The answer is probably 'No'. And that would be a correct answer
because
IETF meeting and podium are not the proper platform for such
discussions.
Actually, the correct answer is no because
those are all historical actions.
Jerry,
I agree with you, and just to inject a little humor, I also agree with
the e-Trade baby when he says it's not the venue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote:
Jerry,
I agree with you, and just to inject a little humor, I also agree with
the e-Trade baby when he says it's not the venue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No
It seems to me that there have been multiple
On Tue Sep 22 22:02:05 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I think we draw the line at restrictions on our freedom of speech.
There are a huge number of locations where freedom of speech is
restricted. Arguably, depending on how precisely one defines it, the
UK and much of the EU falls into
At 05:44 PM 9/22/2009, Dave Cridland wrote:
On the other hand, I can accept as valid the suggestion that some
people have made that the particular restrictions of speech that the
PRC impose may restrict the scope of discussion that the IETF
typically engages in. I suspect that it may not be so,
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Disruptive as defined by whom? It seems to me that the contract we
might
sign cedes the definition of disruptive to a government about whose
laws
we know very little. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know
the IETF has never
Hi Ole,
I'm afraid that results of the survey will *not* prove informative. The one
pertinent question in the survey assumes that we have a meeting in China, then
asks if the respondent, as an individual, would prefer to attend it. This is
very different from asking if we, as a community,
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
I'm afraid that results of the survey will *not* prove informative.
The one pertinent question in the survey assumes that we have a
meeting in China, then asks if the respondent, as an individual,
would prefer to attend it. This is very
Message-
From: Ole Jacobsen [mailto:o...@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 16:07
To: Yaron Sheffer
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: China venue survey
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
I'm afraid that results of the survey will *not* prove informative
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs.
We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality,
and (at least in the community I'm a member of) about security. Many
of our members care a lot
28 matches
Mail list logo
