Re: Last Call: (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC

Hi Richard, I send to the author of an IETF document a message but it was not answered. I beleive that the question from the community was ignored, I hope you understand the importance of community questions. Why does the IETF name its documents RFCs, any one from the community can ask questions e

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Hi thomas, AB> Comment on the summary report> I recommend to add a column for subjects (number of subjects), because the number of subject participated in is very important is such summary. I think the pupose of this summary should be added as well in each post, I don't know why, only I expect

Re: Gen-art additional LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-34

Hi Elwyn, Many thanks for the detailed review. We will address the nits you have raised, but I cut them out of this reply to focus on the more substantial issues you have brought up. See inline below. On 2013-06-06 02:11, Elwyn Davies wrote: > I am an additional Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.

Re: Last Call: (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC

On 07/06/2013 09:23, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Thanks for your respond below, AB Thank you Richard and Abdussalam for reaching agreement on this. I regard the issue as now closed. Regards Stewart Bryant (speaking as responsible Area Director)

Re: Last Call: (IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters) to Best Current Practice

At 04:07 07-05-2013, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art additional LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-34

Hi Elwyn, On 2013-06-07 14:26, Elwyn Davies wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 11:35 +0200, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> Hi Elwyn, >> >> Many thanks for the detailed review. We will address the nits you have >> raised, but I cut them out of this reply to focus on the more >> substantial issues you have

Re: Liaison Statement From the IESG and IAB to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on TISec

> "IAB" == IAB Chair writes: IAB> The Liaison statement can be found here: IAB> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1258/ IAB> The Internet Society will forward this liaison statement to IAB> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on their letterhead. This will carry more IAB> weight than a

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I recommend to add a column for subjects (number of subjects), > because the number of subject participated in is very important is > such summary. It has always been my assumption that the point of this summary was to give us all a reality

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they are posting is actually being read... My strong suspicion would be that there is strong negative correlation between frequency of posts and actual reade

Re: Last Call: (IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters) to Best Current Practice

Hi SM, On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:24 AM, SM wrote: > > At 04:07 07-05-2013, The IESG wrote: >> >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >> the following document: >> - 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE >>802 Parameters' >>

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings > ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they > are > posting is actually being read... > > My strong suspicion would be that there is stron

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote: So why not move the signal? Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for everything else. The discussion still has to happen somewhere. I certainly am not restrictin

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: >> So why not move the signal? >> Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for >> everything else. > > The discussion still has to happen somewhere. I certainly am not > res

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

As long as the summary has been brought up ... I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted content. Dave Morris

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

> From: David Morris > I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the whole > message I send included context quotes, or if there is an attempt by > the summary logic to factor out quoted content. I think it's a _feature_ to count the included content, so that peop

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On Jun 7, 2013, at 12:04 PM, David Morris wrote: > I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the > whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is > an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted > content. A penalty for top-posting sounds okay to me!

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > So why not move the signal? > Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for > everything else. > > > The discussion still has to happen somewhere. I certainly am n

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote: On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon > wrote: On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman > wrote: So why not move the signal? Put IETF Last Call mail onlast-c...@ietf.org and le

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: David Morris > > > I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the whole > > message I send included context quotes, or if there is an attempt by > > the summary logic to factor out quoted content. > > I think it'

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:12, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >> >> As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads run >> well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response time, ULA >> usage, "being careful" about ULAs and the semant

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

> I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the > whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is > an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted > content. Original script is here: http://www.hactrn.net/hacks/mh-list-traffic/mh-list-traffic I don't think I've

Re: Last Call: (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC

AB, As Joel pointed out, your questions should have been raised during the OSPF WG Last Call, which you did not participate in. You (inappropriately) posted questions on the MANET WG list after the OSPF WGLC was complete, and several people responded, most of them stating that RFC 5444 is not

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art additional LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-34

On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 11:35 +0200, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > Hi Elwyn, > > Many thanks for the detailed review. We will address the nits you have > raised, but I cut them out of this reply to focus on the more > substantial issues you have brought up. .. and thanks for the quick response. > > S

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art additional LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-34

On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 16:05 +0200, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > Appendix F: I missed that the text/parameter format appeared in the > > examples for GET_PARAMETER and SET_PARAMETER. It isn't stated in the > > definitions of these methods what encodings are acceptable for the > > message bodies tha

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

> "Andy" == Andy Bierman writes: Andy> So why not move the signal? Andy> Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for Andy> everything else. Okay, that would work for me. Where would the reply-to: on those posts be set to? I also don't think we ever solv

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Thomas, > From my perspective, the intention/usefulness of the weekly posting is > to give folk a high-level view of who is posting and how often. It is > not uncommon to see certain individuals stand out. In some cases, that > makes perfect sense -- and the signal level is high. In other cases, >

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

I like the idea of a separate list for last calls. It would not solve the issue of noise for all of us (and not reduce the overall amount of emails), but it would separate general discussions from IETF LCs. I have IETF emails filtered by mailing list into different IMAP folders, and thus a separati

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

+1 Em 07/06/2013 15:09, Ulrich Herberg escreveu: > I like the idea of a separate list for last calls. It would not solve > the issue of noise for all of us (and not reduce the overall amount of > emails), but it would separate general discussions from IETF LCs. I > have IETF emails filtered by mai

Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org]

Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that, your mail is rather likely to get junked. I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF discussion list. That is exactly the right place for them. It's r

Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org]

On 6/7/13 11:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the > Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that, > your mail is rather likely to get junked. > > I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF > discussi

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

--On Friday, 07 June, 2013 10:57 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: > Thomas, > >> From my perspective, the intention/usefulness of the weekly >> posting is to give folk a high-level view of who is posting >> and how often. It is not uncommon to see certain individuals >> stand out. In some cases, that mak

Additional NomCom Chair Email Aliases

As you probably know, this has been an unusual year for the NomCom. Matt Lepinski is wrapping up the work of the 2012-13 NomCom, while Allison Mankin is actively recruiting volunteers for the 2013-14 NomCom. To address the fact that we currently have two active NomCom Chairs, and to acknowledge

Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org]

I have mixed opinions, filters in general work well (some false positives like these ones that are moved to my "Last Call" filter) but in general it is ok. But I would not oppose to a new list for LC only. Regards, as On 6/7/13 4:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think that IE

Re: Last Call: (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

Dear Routing Area AD, I had many comments/issues regarding your area always addressed to you and including this issue which I hope my all comments (past/present) will help to make better practice/procedural progresses in this IETF Area. I am sorry also to any one receiving this email but I send i

Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org]

On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that, your mail is rather likely to get junked. I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF discussion li