I agree with John K
lets purge 2418, 3683 etc of any language that appears to limit
enforcement options and work things out on a case by case basis
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
see RFC 3563 for one agreement
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
to expand on John's ps
for those of you who were not involved or who have forgotten the details
the note the IESG sent about their review of the ISD idea can be found at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/msg01076.html
but the feeling that the WG got from the IESG review is better
viewe
Spencer remembered:
> My understanding (as author of three of the proposals) was that for most of
> the time newtrk was in existence, the working group's attention was focused
> on ISDs as a way of avoiding the need to tackle the 3 stage process. So I'm
> not sure there was even a call for conse
PS - I do think its fully in Andrew's remit to make this decisison
and I do not think it would be good for the IETF for anyone to
appeal his decision
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> (1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse available
>to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask Andrew to
>reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The former
>has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced.
w
> the level of independence and discretion granted to the RFC
> Editor to edit and publish documents that are not the outcome of the
> IETF's peer review process is, I believe, a central matter in any
> version of an RFC Editor Charter.
how could be any other way?
Scott
__
this summary is right on
> E.g. the IAB should keep its hands off the independent submission
> process at least with this "channel"
so is the rest of Mike's message
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
now is the time to comment if you want to - a lack of comment means
agreement
from ARIN Member Services
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has reviewed Policy
Proposal 20
Michel sed
> breaking news
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the
> ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has reviewed
> policy proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and
> utilisation requirement and has determined that
> Jason had the chair ask how many folks in the room were in the Default
> Free Zone, and 20 people raised their hands. So from that I conclude at
> the very least that 14 of those 20 did not oppose the PI proposal.
its a bit harder to say than that - the 2nd question (how many from
default free
maybe I can summerize John's note by asking if this IAB has the
will to write a RFC 1984 about net neutrality
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> I think that was your point Scott?
I just wanted to be sure the list of RFC types was complete
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think they are independent submissions (not generally written by
teh RFC Editor staff)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be
> for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, .
and 1 april RFCs?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave sed:
> Nroff has no current industry penetration.
fwiw - Nroff is on every Mac OSX shipped
it is a shell procedure that fronts groff
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Brian sed
> It's traditional, and I think fair.
fwiw - it took a bit of adjusting when the ISOC logo was 1st put on
the home page (as I recall) - I also think its fine but should be
about the same scale as the ISOC one
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ie
Sam sez:
> It's certainly current IESG procedure that we can last call
> informationals and experimentals. I don't know that 2026 does or
> needs to say anything about it. Unless it is forbidden it seems like
> a reasonable decision making tool for the IESG to apply in some cases.
imo - its qui
I think that further tweaking with this document is not going to
make it much better & I think its more than good enough now - so lets
sign it and get it behind us
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> I would like to extend the Consensus Call on the IETF Trust for one
> additional week until December 2nd.
fwiw - I think that the IPR trust is basically the right path to take
considering the circumstances but I would like to see answers to
John's issues before proceeding and join John in requ
Noel sez:
If some WSIS-blessed
bureacracy decides to make IP addresses "portable" (like phone numbers in a
number of jurisdictions),
fyi/a - an example of this thinking can be found in the aug 7 1997
amendment to the ARIN articles of incorporation - put there under the
insistance of part o
One David opines
- we need two more people out of the community who are going to spend
a lot of their time on the administrative side of our organization
instead of producing real work for the IETF.
>> ADs do not have to stop doing useful work - many ADs (and even a
>> chair
>> or two) have d
> In which case, what you last call is not the document itself but
> what the IETF intends to say about it, and do about the related
> IANA action.
just so
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents when you
say "IETF review documents")
Scott
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 14 18:12:46 2005
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sub
imo this update is much needed - there has been considerable confusion
about some of the processes in RFC 2434 and it would be good to
clear up the confusion
one specific area of confusion was what used to be called "IETF
Consensus" - renaming it to "IETF Review" may help but I'm not sure
I thi
> I was surprised that TCP-over-IPv6 and UDP-over-IPv6 didn't increase
> >the port number space. I know it's off-topic here, but anyone know why
> >they didn't? It surely must have been considered.
> >
>
> That was considered to be part of TCPng, and as best I recall was
> explicitly out of scope
Sam asks:
> how about just waiting to see if we have a problem before designing
> new process?
we have running code that there have been problems in the past
maybe this new process will help avoid some of them & maybe the IESG will
be more ready to push back on ADs that do not follow these much
re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by the IESG it
should reduce the number of what appears to be blocking actions
by ADs
but I did not see any enforcement mechanism - i.e. if an AD enters a
DISCUSS over a section 3.2 reason how does the
> It's not a hard concept. It just isn't mentioned or implied in RFC 2780.
neither is not drinking gasoline but I trust that will not change
your desire to not do so
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> I agree that this would be a reasonable process, but wouldn't that be
> "IETF Consensus" (an entirely separate choice in RFC 2434 from IESG
> Approval)?
see RFC 2434
IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are
Margaret sed:
> Personally, I think that if the IETF doesn't want to give the IESG
> the right to approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP
> options, then the IETF should update RFC 2780.
for what it's worth (speaking as an IETFer, forment IESGer & co-author of
RFC2780) - to me its
Yakov asks:
> What was the reason(s) the request was made for an assignment
> that required IESG Approval, rather than either Specification
> Required or First Come First Serve ?
it semed to be the right thing at the time
it seemed to be too lose to have the IETF out of the loop
when changing on
> I don't see that text either. I suspect it was omitted because
> of the possibility of denial of service attacks on getting
> standards out (Scott Bradner, a comment on this might be
> helpful).
I do not recall any discussion on this particular question but tere
was a g
ps - you will also find those IENs under RFC # 762, 758 and 755
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> I am looking for Internet Experimental Notes 127, 117 and 93. Any idea where
> these can be found.
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/ien/ien127.txt
for example
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I use nroff
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings,
but we do not count hands - we look to see if there is a clear
difference between hands one way and or the other
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> At this point, less than one week before the meeting, only 14 WGs
> (not counting BOFs) have agendas posted.
humm - maybe there is another explanation for part of that
I sent an agenda (including ID names) in almost a month ago but its not
on the WG & BOF agenda page
forwarded messa
Simon sez:
> My proposal would include the (preferred) option of not adding (tm)
> and (r), or trademark acknowledgments, at all.
that option (though not marked as prefered) is in the Internet-Draft already
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Harld admits and thinks:
> I'm sure Jorge could phrase it better. but I think the meaning
> is clear.
works for me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Harald asks:
> Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with.
...
> Comments?
too many words for my liking but I can live with it
(and the reasons behind the last paragraph are important to me)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Harald asks:
> is using
> the term "5/8 of the voting members" an acceptable phrase?
it's just what I was asking for (i.e, to answer your question - yes)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Harald suggests
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of five of the IAOC voting members.
I don't think its a good idea to use absolute numbers - its better
to use fractions '4/5ths of the voting members' for example - in
not a showstopper but it woudl eb good to be clear
the text curently says:
Subject to paragraph 2 of Section 4.1, appointed members of the IAOC
serve two year terms. IAOC terms normally end at the first IETF
meeting of a year, just as as IAB and IESG terms do.
I suggest changing this t
> All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
> still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
> to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature)
if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/co
Russ sez:
We want to keep it simple. However, a recall is serious. At a minimum, we
need to require that 2/3rd of the voters are present for the vote. If we
say that at least 2/3rd of those present must vote for removal, then an
'abstain' is essentially a vote to keep the chair in of
Harald quotes John and says
> Or, more generally, if the IAD is expected to act merely as a
> conduit for information between the IETF leadership and
> Neustar/Foretec, is the job description correct (at least for
> the duration of the Neustar arrangement) and does the job really
> require a
Harald mentions in passing:
for instance, the transition team has
briefly considered the option of making "permanent institutional memory" in
the form of archives a separate task that is carried out outside the
present "secretariat" framework - since Carl's reports indicate that this
Harald sez:
- We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could
help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going
straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would.
is there any particular consensus determination mechanism en
Bert resuggests:
5.1 Cost Center Accounting
Funds managed by the IASA shall be accounted for in a separate set of
general ledger accounts within the IASA Cost Center. In the remainder
of this document, these general ledger accounts are termed "IASA
accounts". A periodic summary of
Bert suggests:
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
be accounted for in a separate set of general ledger
accounts within the Cost Center IASA.
In the remainder of this docum
> I have left the change to "General Ledger Accounts" out for the
> time being, because I am not sure we have consensus on that yet
> (even though ISOC prefers that terminology).
I would think it is a generally good idea to use the legal terms to
reduce confusion so I see no justification to not u
Harald suggests
> The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for
> legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately,
> and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation.
>
> Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out
> talking abou
Harald suggests teh following
The IAD negotiates service contracts, with input, as appropriate,
from other bodies, including legal advice, and with review, as
appropriate, by the IAOC. The
IAOC should establish guidelines for what level of review is expected
based on contract type,
I prefer NEW(2)
Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
direction of the IAOC. A committee of the IAOC is responsible for
hiring and firing of the IAD, for reviewing the performance and for
setting the compensation of the IAD. The members of this committee are
ful
Scott
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 23 15:17:14 2005
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From:
Harald suggests
To the extent allowed by law, any balance in the IASA accounts, any
IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and
tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms shall be
negotiated between the IETF and ISOC.
works for me
Scott
___
I agree with Harald - lets leave it as-is
Margaret wrote:
>> 8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient
>
> s/shall ensure/shall attempt to ensure/ ??
>
>> reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of
>> unexpected events such as income shortfalls.
I
Harald points out and suggests
The question was what the purpose of the last line was.
The discussion seems to have revealed that this is good business practice
(don't accept gifts of white elephants), and there's no real need to change
the text.
agree (he says agreeing to his own word
Harald suggests:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate.
looks good to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to appeal/review
awards if they can not be overturned - apealing or reviewing
the process that was followed is fine but appealling the actual
award seems broken
this may seem like a wording nit but I think it would properly set
expectations
S
Margaret sez:
> None of the versions of the text that we are looking at (the current
> BCP, Harald's, mine, Scott Brim's...) indicate that a request for
> review of an IAD or IAOC decision could result in: (1) reversing a
> ...
if all of the proposed text actually said (as the -04 text does)
how about (in response to Elwyn's comment)
Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
direction of the IAOC. A committee of the IAOC is responsible for
hiring and firing of the IAD, for reviewing the performance and for
setting the compensation of the IAD. The
Brian clarifies:
> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards isn't, IMHO,
> which is all I intended my words to exclude.
I agree with Brian - allowing the review of specific awards could
easily cause the DoS attack that I've been warning against
Scott
Harald asks if "no change" on "firing the whole group" is OK
its ok by me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
harald suggets
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC may decide by voting.
looks good to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l
Harald asks:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational
after this document has been approved by the process defined in
BCP 9 [RFC2026] , including its acceptance as an IETF
Harald explains
> > Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
> > ---
> >
> > why not make public all requests (i.e. remove "Answered" from the
> > last line)
>
> because:
> 1) some requests are an embarassment to the
Margaret notes
It seems strange, IMO, to be so worried about DoS attacks through the
appeal process we've been using this process for several years for
IESG and WG decisions and haven't experienced that sort of problem...
the current appeals process does not apply to commercial decisions
su
Harald suggests:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that mad
Bert sez:
NEW:
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC decides by voting.
I thought the other point was that the text should
Margaret asks
> ISSUE #5:
>
> 6. There shall be a detailed public accounting to separately
> identify all funds available to and all expenditures relating to
> the IETF and to the IASA, including any donations, of funds or
> in-kind, received by ISOC for IETF-related
John K sez:
> Proposed change: Get rid of "unanimous" (both times), replacing
> it with "consensus" and appropriate editorial smoothing.
I fully agree
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
note that in the resolutions that accepted the IETF process BCPs
(2026 for example) also had text that said that the ISOC aggreed to
undertake the role described in the document for the ISOC
i.e. I would expect that both would be in a single motion
Scott
___
Harald further suggests:
3.4 IAOC Decision Making
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved, some decisions may be made by voting.
The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making
rules, including its rules for quorum, conflict o
> -On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 07:20:22 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Harald,
> >
> > So the IAD and IAOC don't have to respond to individual requests for
> > review unless IAB or IESG make the request on behalf of an individual,
> > but we all get to see requests and
> I think you have to explain more why you are worried before I'm able to
> share them.
I have in detail in the past
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
harald proposes:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to mak
> So - Scott, can you confirm that you think quorum rules should be in the
> BCP? Rob, can you confirm that you think they should not be?
imo - if rules for voting are in the document then quorum rules should be
but I'm fine with the idea that the document say
1/ general method is consens
haralald's Suggested revision:
All IAOC decisions shall be recorded in IAOC minutes, and IAOC
minutes shall be published regularly.
looks fine to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
harald asks
> We have to adjust the second sentence (referring to "such contracts" would
> become ambiguous), so the total paragraph becomes:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
"in-house" should be explicitly justifie
Specific suggestion for text changes from harald
Reserves
Section 2.2 bullet 7, current:
8. The IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover
normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with
prudent plann
Harald suggets:
so I'll switch to proposing
that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns
at the end of section 4.0:
-
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as
Glen rants:
> Are you then claiming that there is _nowhere_ in France that a) is
> capable of hosting a meeting with the IETF's requirements and b) the
> weather is more pleasant? =20
how about Paris?
http://www.paris.org/Accueil/Climate/gifs/paris.climate.temp.html
seems like the news story
bert asks:
> The current text in section 3, 1st para states
> The IAOC consists of volunteers,
> does that not say enough?
I'd say no - volunteers can get paid in some cases
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org
Jonne asks:
> would
> x.x Compensation for IOAC members
> The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
> reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the
> IOAC."
>
> do the trick then?
works for me
_
brian asks
> Perhaps we do indeed need to explicitly limit the
> IAOC Chair to chairing the IAOC. But we almost do - the following paragraph
> says:
>
> The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
> activities and meetings of the IAOC. The IAOC Chair has no formal
>
> However, people from outside US have to pay
> for the long distance fee to call those numbers.
the services that teh IESG used when I was an AD called out to non-US
folk (or to folk that were in those %%(*$%$& hotels that charge
per minute for "toll free" calls longer than some time)
Scott
__
> > just being willing to pay travel expenses might make it possible for
> > someone to be able to do the IAOC job (since I think it can be done
> > in non-day-job time) - that is not the case for IAB or IESG members
>
> To be honest, I don't quite follow this logic. What would be the major
> dif
> Personally, I don't understand why we would have a different
> reimbursement policy for IAOC members than for IESG and IAB members.
just being willing to pay travel expenses might make it possible for
someone to be able to do the IAOC job (since I think it can be done
in non-day-job time) - t
please do not read more into what I said than I said - I *only* meant
what I said - nothing more (I have a hard time understanding how anyone
could have misread what I said)
I did not suggest any change to the non-reimbursment of IESG & IAB
expanses - nor did I intend to
I expect the job of being
> I admit that I maybe have too much a view point of someone working for a
> relatively large company.
not everyone does
> I try to approach this from a position where
> the IAOC itself does not become a significant cost for IASA.
I agree - see my note - I do not think that face to face meetin
thanks to Jonne for bringing this up - I agree that some text about this
should be in the document but I disagree on what it should say.
imo - the IAOC members should not be compensated for their time but
I think its reasonable for them to be reimbursed for expenses for
travel to meetings not h
> Scoot, I believe that we have also resolved that issue
> implicitly by resolving issue749. Do you agree?
not being someone who memorizes issue numbers I had to look these up
but I think you are correct
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https:
I like John's formulation & reason
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
"in-house" should be explicitly justified by the IAOC
and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these
decis
Bert quotes lynn and then says
> > Maybe replace the last two sentences with some variation of "Access
> > to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC
> > approval processes for any budget overruns."
> >
>
> I believe that the current text was quite extensively discussed in t
Bert sez:
As a result of the discussion I have updated the text
and it currently looks as follows in my edit buffer:
While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's
administrative needs, its budget process clearly needs
to b
clearly fund raising expenses must be accounted for but, imo,
there is nothing special about fund raising expenses - there will
also be other overhead costs that will have to be seen as being in the
IASA budget (Bert mentions credit card fees, there is also office space,
legal support for contrac
Harald concludes:
> I believe that these are valid reasons to keep the mention of the
> outsourcing principle in section 3, so I suggest we close #723 with "no
> changes needed".
I agree
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org
accounting transparency is mentioned in a number of places already
it seems overly redundent to mention it here yet again - but its not
a big deal to me
Scott
-
Kurtis comments on text suggested by Bernard:
> On 2004-12-09, at 17.02, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> > Suggest this be rewritten to:
1 - 100 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
