It seems like yesterday when we were in Berlin, but I wanted to highlight that
our Vancouver meeting is coming up soon. Sooner than usual, in fact, given the
dates of the meetings this year.
I wanted to highlight an important deadline. If you are working on a new
proposal for work at the IETF,
At 23:15 31-08-2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt to
communicate clearly?
The new text is as follows:
Participants, particularly those with English as a first language, attempt
to accommodate the needs of other participan
On Sep 3, 2013 5:47 AM, "S Moonesamy" wrote:
At the other end someone who has a problem understanding what is being said
can contact the WG Chair or Area Director privately so that they can step
in and help.
Because there are communication problems every few minutes, this seems like
a large burde
On 2 sep. 2013, at 22:14, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, 02 September, 2013 14:09 -0400 Scott O Bradner
> wrote:
>
>>> There is at least one ongoing effort right now that has the
>>> potential to reclassify a large set of Proposed Standard RFCs
>>> that form the basis of widely use
+1. Well said.
Olaf, John, Scott,
> In fact, going back to the language of RFC2026 for Full (now Internet)
> Standard. It confirms that popularity (significant implementation) is one
> necessary but not sufficient criterium.
Sorry. I was careless when I wrote about the effort. I didn't mean to suggest
that w
S Moonesamy wrote:
>At 23:15 31-08-2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to
>attempt to
>>communicate clearly?
>
>The new text is as follows:
>
>Participants, particularly those with English as a first language,
>attempt
>to accommodate th
the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive
removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes
sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do
but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says:
The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>On 9/3/2013 9:26 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>> S Moonesamy wrote:
>>> The new text is as follows: Participants, particularly those with
>>> English as a first language, attempt to accommodate the needs of
>>> other participants by communicating clearly. Participants
On 9/3/2013 9:26 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
S Moonesamy wrote:
The new text is as follows: Participants, particularly those with
English as a first language, attempt to accommodate the needs of
other participants by communicating clearly. Participants try to
accommodate each other.
Except
On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive
removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes
sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do
but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says:
The RFC Editor shall
thank you - clarity does help
but such an effort will not remove the need for this document imo
Scott
On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Jari Arkko
wrote:
> Olaf, John, Scott,
>
>> In fact, going back to the language of RFC2026 for Full (now Internet)
>> Standard. It confirms that popularity (sign
Hi,
Quoting Abdussalam Baryun :
I always think the problem of not understanding a message in IETF is
not the fault of the transmitter, but it is the receiver's fault. The
receiver SHOULD make more efforts to understand, or send a reply to
request clarifications (specially in IETF WGs when discu
thank you Sir for the reminder,
i applied for the scholarship for Vancouver meeting, i have not heard back yet!
any advise ?
thank you,
Arbogast Fabian,
cell:+255-78-447-8387
> Subject: Vancouver meeting is coming up fast
> From: ch...@ietf.org
> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:32:10 +0300
>
Hi,
Quoting S Moonesamy :
The original phrasing is as follows:
"English is the de facto language of the IETF, but it is not the
native language of many IETF participants. Native English
speakers attempt to speak clearly and a bit slowly and to limit
the use of slang in order to acc
On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Colleagues, and Doug especially,
>
> The message I sent (below) wasn't intended as a "shut up and go away"
> message, but a genuine query. I have grave doubts that TLS is the
> right example (to begin with, I think fitting it into the REPUT
On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive
>> removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes
>> sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do
>>
>> but the 3rd pa
>> That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt
>> to communicate clearly?
>
> The new text is as follows:
>
> Participants, particularly those with English as a first language, attempt
> to accommodate the needs of other participants by communicating clearly.
>
>
On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
> always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
> to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
> baked?
It seems as if we already
fwiw - I would love for the IESG to exercise flexibility here
but I have not seen that in many years - so I think we are already there
without a discernible path back
Scott
On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Barry Leiba
wrote:
> I mostly agree with this draft, but I have a concern. Let's anchor
> t
On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
in line
On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick
wrote:
at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd
paragraph in the same section
An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
appear in each issue of the Internet Soci
On 9/3/13 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
...the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3...
Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from
6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of t
I mostly agree with this draft, but I have a concern. Let's anchor
that concern off of this bit that Jari said:
> Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the original
> mode of operation, i.e., making PS RFCs truly early and somewhat untested
> specifications. I am perso
in line
On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick
wrote:
> On 9/3/13 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>>>
...the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3...
>>> Good catch. I'll switch the
Hello,
This is a rough summary of the comments which
have been made on the Last Call for
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 since I emailed Pete Resnick [1].
There were comments about the RFC 5507 concerns
from Patrik Fältström [2], Dave Crocker [3], Mark
Andrews [4] and John Klensin [5].
There
Comment at the end...
On 04/09/2013 08:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> in line
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd
>> paragraph in the same section
>> An official summary of s
On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that
update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves.
Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the
Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to
>attempt
>>> to communicate clearly?
>>
>> The new text is as follows:
>>
>> Participants, particularly those with English as a first language,
>attempt
>> to accommodate the needs of other participants
On 9/3/2013 6:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs
that
update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves.
Quite seriously - I
On 04/09/2013 11:20, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 6:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> So that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
>>> another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs
>>> that
>>> update RFC 2026, some
Hi Pete,
At 16:02 03-09-2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
OK, does this do anything for anyone?
Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the
publication of an "official summary of standards actions completed
and pending" in the Internet Society's newsletter. This has also not
On 9/3/13 4:28 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Pete,
At 16:02 03-09-2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
OK, does this do anything for anyone?
Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the
publication of an "official summary of standards actions completed
and pending" in the Internet Society's ne
On 9/3/13 6:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think that is a given without having pre-emptive blame assignment in the
> text.
*Blame*?
I know that I've inadvertently used regional idioms that were hard
for non-native speakers to understand and I've been grateful when
it's been pointed out. Try
On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 17:07:02 Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 9/3/13 6:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I think that is a given without having pre-emptive blame assignment in the
> > text.
> *Blame*?
>
> I know that I've inadvertently used regional idioms that were hard
> for non-native speak
On 9/3/13 6:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I agree that trying to figure things out is a net positive. What I want to
> avoid is someone making excuses claiming that since they aren't a native
> speaker it's somebody else's problem to understand them.
I'd like to think that we're going to reta
Barry,
Question, in-line.
On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I mostly agree with this draft, but I have a concern. Let's anchor
> that concern off of this bit that Jari said:
>
>> Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the
>> original
>> mode of oper
36 matches
Mail list logo
