It was pointed out that I got the RFC numbers wrong. Sorry. I should have RFC
6220 (role of IETF protocol parameters operators) and RFC 2850 (IAB charter).
Jari
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I think that is a better approach actually. The CC TLDs are in effect
> members of a bridge CA and ICANN is merely the bridge administrator.
It is an interesting way to say it, and put that way, I like it.
One activity that I believe is an NSA attack on goo
Dave,
> The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather obscure
> document that came from the IAB and not the broader IETF, demonstrates my
> point that we lacked meaningful context
You asked for context and I provided a context. We can certainly debate how
meaningful it is
Hi Medel,
At 19:11 09-10-2013, Medel v6 Ramirez wrote:
Leaders were "processed" thoroughly prior to their appointment so I
trust them. And that they hold through the "spirit" of being an IETF
and shall be responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
There was a Recall petition la
I like your approach and comments, and I think that our ietf leaders are
not always leaders but in IESG they are the managers. Mostly ietf ruled by
community consensus not presidents, so we have many leaders including you
and some others may be additional leaders for the community. The ietf wants
On 10/11/2013 7:31 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Dave:
On IANA:
Further, I believe there is no IETF context
RFC 6020 and
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf
Jari,
The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather
obscure document that came
On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Medel v6 Ramirez wrote:
> Leaders were "processed" thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust
> them. And that they hold through the "spirit" of being an IETF and shall be
> responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
I don't know precisely what
Dave:
On IANA:
> Further, I believe there is no IETF context
RFC 6020 and
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf
Jari
On 10/8/2013 11:34 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a
part of a meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other
Internet organisations.
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
Folks,
T
Leaders were "processed" thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust
them. And that they hold through the "spirit" of being an IETF and shall be
responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
BR,
Medel
GOOGLE IS IPv6 COMPLIANT !
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryu
I agree to appoint leader under clear procedures, so I am not sure of
representing without procedure is authorised in ietf, but I trust that ietf
leaders do practice procedure, but not sure if discussion meant that there
was something missing in this statement practice.
AB
On Wednesday, October 9
SM:
Each of these leaders comes from a different organization, and each of these
organizations grants their leaders different degrees of autonomy. So, the
amount of coordination that was done differs for each. In all cases, there was
one business day to do the coordination.
In my case, I shar
Hi Russ,
At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
This is a statement about what happened at a
meeting. Discussion would not change what
happened at the meeting. Making the statement
very public allows a good discussion of what
should happen next. I look forward to that discussion.
One of
We appointed our leaders, we have to trust them. They had to do a call,
an important one and they made it.
I support what they did, that is what we chose them for, to represent
us and be our voice. We cannot expect that they ask our opinion for
every decision they made, that is no
On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
>>> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
>>> future - if tim
SM:
> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without
> requesting comments from the IETF Community. In my humble opinion it would
> be good if there was a comment period.
This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not
change what happened at t
On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
>> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
>> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay
>> and ge
--On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
>...
> That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the
> contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the
> difference between some individuals issuing a statement in
> their capacity as chairs and CEOs
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay
> and getting input from the community.
This is a
> From: Andrew Sullivan
> I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between
> "the IAB Chair says" and "the IAB says".
We may attend to it, but we are unable to make sure that the rest of the world
pays attention to that nuance.
> From: SM
> In my humbl
On 09/10/13 07:44, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
>> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
> Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
> disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this c
On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
>> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
>
> Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
> disagree. The IAB has issued no st
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this case.
The text as posted is quite clear:
---%<---c
Hi Russ,
At 15:51 07-10-2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the
On 8October2013Tuesday, at 6:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before
> > the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to
> > ensu
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> > before the
> > vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to
> > ensure that
> > no such l
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be
> to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of
> the DNS t
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> before the
> vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to
> ensure that
> no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to
> be a
>
>
> I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the
> vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure
> that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to
> be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of s
Phillip,
On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 08:24 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> If nothing is done then sooner or later there will be some idiot on
> his hind legs in the Senate talking for 21 hours demanding that Cuba
> or Palestine be dropped out of the DNS root or be denied IPv6
> allocations or some
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >
> > This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
> > undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
> > something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
>
> Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privac
>
> This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
> undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
> something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privacy causes concern, not the
revelations.
Jari
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:34:58AM +0300,
IETF Chair wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
> I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a part of a
> meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other Internet
> organisations.
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org
33 matches
Mail list logo
