On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:26 PM, SM wrote:
>
> The nit is why is the IETF still using PDT.
Because we don't want to get into a religious war of GMT vs UTC.
On 31/08/2013 02:26, SM wrote:
...
>
> The nit is why is the IETF still using PDT.
I assure you that things were operationally much worse when the
Secretariat was using EDT.
Really - the service level has improved continuously over the last
eight years. Of course things can always be better, and
Hi Jari,
At 01:05 30-08-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
I certainly agree that in incidents like this, a timely notification
is in order. (Of course to the extent that the outage itself allows
us to do that. Sometimes the outage or the queue that has built up
during the outage delays sending a notifica
I will also add that when I requested it Steve sent me a list that
indicated who sent what messages to the mailing lists that I moderate. That
was really helpful as I could ping folks to resend and I was able to resend
those that I had sent myself, so it wasn't too onerous to recover given
that we
SM:
I certainly agree that in incidents like this, a timely notification is in
order. (Of course to the extent that the outage itself allows us to do that.
Sometimes the outage or the queue that has built up during the outage delays
sending a notification.)
And we normally do send notification
Hello,
Thanks to Bob Hinden for the quick response. What follows is a
general comment.
My message was not a report about an operational problem. It was
about the lack of a timely notification, and maybe an explanation if
anyone deems that appropriate, about these problems to the IETF commu
SM,
The place to report IETF operational problems is . I
forwarded your email.
Bob
On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:50 PM, SM wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Could whoever from the IETF "leadership" who is responsible for the matter
> please comment about the mail loss incident?
>
> I previously commented about
