Date:Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:32:12 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Also remember that no consensus in an issue like this, really needs to
| mean no authority - if you cannot get at least most of the community to
|
--On Tuesday, 05 July, 2005 08:47 -0700 Bill Manning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe that is true in this case, as long as RFC
2780 is in force.
Especially since there is a clear path for Larry Roberts to
ask for IETF consensus, which by definition would overrule
the IESG.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 05 July, 2005 08:47 -0700 Bill Manning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe that is true in this case, as long as RFC
2780 is in force.
Especially since there is a clear path for Larry Roberts to
ask for IETF consensus, which by definition would
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 05:24:40PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 05 July, 2005 08:47 -0700 Bill Manning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe that is true in this case, as long as RFC
2780 is in force.
Especially since there is a clear path for
Robert Elz wrote:
...
Also remember that no consensus in an issue like this, really needs to
mean no authority - if you cannot get at least most of the community to
agree with the IESG position, then the IESG cannot just claim the
authority and say there is no consensus that we should not have
Thanks Ken (and those who have followed up). I don't think
there's any need to repeat the count - we can safely say
that opinions are divided.
Brian
Ken Carlberg wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter
I'm supposed to be on vacation so this will be brief, but I don't
think that your assertion
On Jul 5, 2005, at 2:32, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Robert Elz wrote:
...
Also remember that no consensus in an issue like this, really needs
to
mean no authority - if you cannot get at least most of the
community to
agree with the IESG position, then the IESG cannot just claim the
authority
At 01:43 02/07/2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:07:47PM +0200, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
The list of satisfied is of ne real interest. The list of disatistied
seem important enough to say there is no consensus.
No IETF consensus is required to accept or deny a
On 07/01/2005 13:02 PM, Ken Carlberg allegedly wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
taking the position that respondents can be classified as either:
a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or
uncomfortable with the decision, or c)
Scott W Brim wrote:
On 07/01/2005 13:02 PM, Ken Carlberg allegedly wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
taking the position that respondents can be classified as either:
a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or
uncomfortable with
And I apologize for having nothing whatsoever to say about spamops,
killfiles, or steering.
as well you should.
we will let it slide this time, Mr. Dawkins.
but don't let it happen again.
--
d/
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
You can add me to the satisfied column. The IESG is asked to take
positions and to lead (despite what a few think). That's risky -- no
matter what they do they get criticism from somewhere. Maybe they
didn't *phrase* the announcement perfectly, but the
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:11:47 +0800
From:Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scot,
| Something like this must have a serious, long-term IETF review.
| We need to take the overall design of the Internet into
| account and not just be
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:36:30 +0300 (EEST)
From:Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| though I can understand the arguments why
| documenting the proposed use could be useful.
I believe it is documented (though I haven't read the
Apologies for missing the second 't' in your name in the message
I sent to the list - I must have been asleep...
kre
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scott W Brim wrote:
On 07/01/2005 13:02 PM, Ken Carlberg allegedly wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
taking the position that respondents can be classified as either:
a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or
uncomfortable with the
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:02:29AM -0400, Ken Carlberg wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
taking the position that respondents can be classified as either:
a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or
uncomfortable with the decision,
] On Behalf Of
Theodore Ts'o
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 7:52 AM
To: Ken Carlberg
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?]
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:02:29AM -0400, Ken Carlberg wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect
Brian,
Let me add three observations to Ken's rather interesting
tabulation (without having read all of the traffic since then --
if someone else has said this, I apologize)...
--On Friday, July 01, 2005 1:02 AM -0400 Ken Carlberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter
I'm
The list of satisfied is of ne real interest. The list of disatistied
seem important enough to say there is no consensus.
At 16:51 01/07/2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:02:29AM -0400, Ken Carlberg wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:07:47PM +0200, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
The list of satisfied is of ne real interest. The list of disatistied
seem important enough to say there is no consensus.
No IETF consensus is required to accept or deny a registration for the
registry in question under the
I agree with all of Joel's points, below, and add the following comments.
The fundamental philosophical assumption made by
draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt goes too far is that registration
of code points is always a good thing, and it is never bad thing to
reserve a code point in the
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:25:25 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| As I said in the plenary in Minneapolis, my goal is for the IESG to be
| able to *steer*. Not to rule. Steering means finding the narrow line
| between
If I may plead for a moment of silence ...
There is an Internet Draft that is intended to give the community a
chance to provide comments on what the IETF vision of option
registration might be - or, might not be.
If we could discuss this draft, and say things like I agree, I
disagree, goes
From: Brian E Carpenter
I'm supposed to be on vacation so this will be brief, but I don't
think that your assertion about what the community has said is
backed up by postings from a sufficient number of people to be a
community view. Most people in the community haven't posted one way
As a general statement, I think this document goes too far.
Several issues occur to me reading it. A sampling follow.
1) As written, the document seems to say that all small allocation spaces
should be repaired. This does not always follow. Making the IP version
space bigger does not seem a
26 matches
Mail list logo
