Thierry Ernst wrote:
In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a
chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish
their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the
entire IETF community. In many occasions, I have seen new drafts bee
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 03:22:58PM +0200,
Thierry Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> Note that the aim of this proposition would not to get more fund to
> the IETF, but to relieve the IETF of the cost of processing drafts
> that are never read, never discussed,
On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two
> members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth
> review does not happen for random student-published I-D.
There is still no cost to the IE
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> To summary: what problem do we try to solve?
either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income
do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while
the i-d live in the automated part of the process?
tim
> In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a
> chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish
> their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the
> entire IETF community.
that's a really amazing statement. If I were participatin
Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two
>> members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth
>> review does not happen for random student-published I-D.
>>
On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
To summary: what problem do we try to solve?
either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income
do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while
the i-
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a
>> chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish
>> their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the
>> entire IETF community.
>that's a reall
Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a
>>> chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish
>>> their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the
>>> entire I
Its a nonsense idea. The vanity press formerly known as peer-reviewed journals
have become virtually irrelevant for any purpose other than determining
academic tenure or award of research grants. If its not on the Web it is not
going to influence anyone else.
Charges that bear no relationship
> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a
> >> chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish
> >> their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the
> >> entire IETF community.
> >tha
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:29:51 -0400
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a
chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish
t
Tim Chown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> To summary: what problem do we try to solve?
>
> either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income
>
> do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while
> the i-d live in the automate
On 7/31/07 1:01 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Expected result of charging per I-D: bigger I-Ds.
Library science research in the early 1980s
found that the number of authors was highly
correlated with title length, so one might
reasonably expect that charging for internet
dra
> -Original Message-
> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds
>
> On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[EMAIL
There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer
time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract
the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database,
keep the systems up and running, etc.
And, with the advent of the online I-D submission to
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 12:29:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to
> establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever
> patented by someone else.
I have written or co-written a few drafts in the past purely as p
Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/31/07 1:01 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Expected result of charging per I-D: bigger I-Ds.
>
> Library science research in the early 1980s
> found that the number of authors was highly
> correlated with title length, so one might
> reasonably exp
>> perhaps I misunderstood. I just don't want to further raise the barrier
>> for publishing I-Ds, because it's easier for the community to deal with
>> ideas published in that form than, say, on a web page or blog.
>>
>
> This I agree, as for establishing prior art.
>
> Anyway, your comment
To: Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject:RE: Charging I-Ds
Melinda,
I was trying to avoid weighing in on this discussion.
The discussion is essentially inane, and that's (at least
part of) your point. After all, the thought
>
>
> Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
> To: Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst
> Cc:
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 05:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Melinda Shore; Stephane
Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject:RE: Charging I-Ds
> The current business model does not bring in enough cash.
Eric Gray> The discussion is essentially inane
I think this is an excellent observation. It suggests to me though that
perhaps the best way to get more funding for the IETF is to impose a
surcharge on inane messages to the ietf mailing list. The surcharge can be
based on the degree
A excellent start...
You forgot $500 for messages on the use of ASCII in RFC's.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:50 AM
To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds
Eric Gray> The discu
On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Peter Sherbin wrote:
The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do
we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals?
E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or
sellable standards.
IETF unique way could be to charge a
*> From: "Richard Shockey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*>
*> A excellent start...
*>
*> You forgot $500 for messages on the use of ASCII in RFC's.
*>
Actually, I believe such messages are useful. They occur infrequently,
in short storms at least a year apar
In keeping with Eric Rosen's excellent thread ..
The simple solution is to charge 500 .. UK POUNDS!! for Internet Access
during the IETF meetings. This is clearly in keeping with standard
hotel/airport practices around the world.
This would clearly solve the budget problem as well as discourage
Richard Shockey wrote:
> In keeping with Eric Rosen's excellent thread ..
>
> The simple solution is to charge 500 .. UK POUNDS!! for Internet Access
> during the IETF meetings. This is clearly in keeping with standard
> hotel/airport practices around the world.
>
GBP 500 for using a laptop in a
On 1-aug-2007, at 22:48, Keith Moore wrote:
Charge for every PowerPoint slide used in a presentation - GBP 2
for the
first one, and the rate doubles for each additional slide.
Right, the letters on the average powerpoint slide are way too
comfortable to read from the back of the room the w
> > IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address
> allocation to
> > RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as
> they do now
> > and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF.
>
> A IP address use fee might help solve two problems. When based upon
> relative scarcities
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Board of Trustees of ARIN .. has just released an official
> statement
> There are, however, those who propose that the democratically
> established governance principles now be abandoned ...
> The purpose of this memorandum is to assu
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:05:35AM -0700,
Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
> [Of course, when the IAOC outsources the RFC Editor to India in
> 2009,
Good idea. May be the indians will process the errata in time?
___
Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which
may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to pay.
I also work on things at the IETF than my employer does not sponsor.
These things will get thrown out as well.
Since we have started slaughtering the
> Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which
> may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to pay.
> I also work on things at the IETF than my employer does not sponsor.
> These things will get thrown out as well.
I assume i-d to be a pr
-ichiro itojun Hagino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 05:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
> Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which
> may or may not bear fruition. I wou
Hi Itojun,
How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny
things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6
and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals
coming out which depend on new hbh options? What should I do instead o
Suresh Krishnan writes:
How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny
things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in
IPv6 and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still
proposals coming out which depend on new hbh options? What sh
al Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:05 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which
may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to
> How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny
>things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6
>and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals
>coming out which depend on new hbh options? What should I do instead of
>wri
39 matches
Mail list logo
