On 18 sep. 2013, at 01:54, John C Klensin wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I generally agree with your changes and consider them important
> -- the IESG should be seen in our procedural documents as
> evaluating and reflecting the consensus of the IETF, not acting
> independently of it.
>
Agreed….
> Of th
I agree with both, but maybe the problem is that people from academia are
not participating enough to report to ADs their concerns (e.g. what is bad
in ietf, or lack of diversity), on the other hand, people from industry are
more organised and don't need/want the academians ideas/participations :-)
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> I agree with both, but maybe the problem is that people from academia are
> not participating enough to report to ADs their concerns (e.g. what is bad
> in ietf, or lack of diversity), on the other hand, people from industry are
> more o
John covered why I said that Pete's assertion is factually incorrect
that said, I agree that being accurate here (that the IESG is the final decider
and the body that
changed the review from what was described in RFC 2026) may be counter
productive when
the document is reviewed outside of the
On Sep 18, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> on the other hand, people from industry are more organised and don't
> need/want the academians ideas/participations :-)
The IETF is not an industry organization. We want (and get!) participation
from a wide range of people, including i
Hiya,
On 09/18/2013 10:22 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> With
> limited resources (not only funds, also students are nowadays a scarce
> resource) we must concentrate our efforts where the return for unit of
> work is larger.
While I sympathise, that "must" above is a choice.
Since an academi
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:59 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
wrote:
>> However, because the document will be read externally, I
>> prefer that it be "IETF" in all of the places you identify.
>> If we have to hold our noses and claim that the community
>> authorized the IESG actions by failing to
On 17 September 2013 20:14, Michael Tuexen
wrote:
>> I really think that you all are completely over-engineering
>> this.
+1
> Really?
> Each RFC lists the addresses of the authors.
There are, in the RfC I used as an example, far more acknowledged
contributors, than authors. No addresses for th
On 17 September 2013 20:44, Hector Santos wrote:
> The idea is great. By why use ORCID? Why not Facebook? linked-in? etc. So
> many issues when its 3rd party.
Facebook, LinkedIn (and other such services) are commercial, and
proprietary. Their data is not available under a CC0 licence and their
On 17 September 2013 20:58, Hector Santos wrote:
> But all the newsletter spam potential and privacy issues
> IETF has no legal hold or control of any kind, in case, well, of the many
> things that can happen.
Please elaborate on these "issues" and "things", in order that
specific concerns can
On 17 September 2013 21:10, Tony Hansen wrote:
> What would the ORCID reference look like? My understanding is that it
> would look like this: http://orcid.org/-0003-0437-
That is correct.
> Very few people use the uri element in the author block. (I count zero
> in the currently extant
On 17 September 2013 21:13, Hector Santos wrote:
>> On 17 September 2013 14:37, Hector Santos wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to me to be a conflict of interest issue.
>>
>>
>> Please explain where this conflict supposedly lies.
>
>
> Too many to list.
Then please list a few.
> Why not gmail.com, google+,
On 18 September 2013 02:44, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Checking out the ORCID site, I noticed that when manually adding a
> work, one of the possible external IDs is "Request for Comments". So
> they certainly seem to be aware of the RFC series. The site already
> has the ability to search various
On 9/18/13 7:19 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
In full context:
In fact, the IETF review is more extensive than that done
in other SDOs owing to the cross-area technical review
performed by the IETF,exemplified by technical review by
the full IESG at last stage of specification d
On 9/18/2013 8:45 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 17 September 2013 21:10, Tony Hansen wrote:
>
>> Very few people use the uri element in the author block. (I count zero
>> in the currently extant internet-drafts XML files.) Its intended use
>> really is for the author to put in whatever URI they car
Olaf, John, Pete,
I know I have more mail to process and that you've already converged. I just
wanted to say something about this:
>
>
> While commonly less mature specifications will be published as
> Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in
> exceptional cases, publish a specific
On 18 September 2013 14:04, Tony Hansen wrote:
> I just re-read your original message to ietf@ietf.org. What I had
> originally taken as a complaint about getting a way to have a unique id
> (in this case, an ORCID) for the authors was instead a complaint about
> getting a unique id for the people
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:30 +0100 Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> On 18 September 2013 14:04, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> I just re-read your original message to ietf@ietf.org. What I
>> had originally taken as a complaint about getting a way to
>> have a unique id (in this case, an ORCID) for th
>There are, in the RfC I used as an example, far more acknowledged
>contributors, than authors. No addresses for those contributors are
>given.
As far as I can tell, nobody else considers that to be a problem.
I have written a bunch of books and looked at a lot of bibliographic
records, and I hav
On 09/16/2013 08:03 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Hi Glen,
as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder.
No, it's not. It is a roadblock. If it was "just a reminder". I would
be free to ignore it, in the same way that I ignore a reminder from my
calendar about a meetin
On 9/18/2013 8:59 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Andy, we just don't have a tradition of identifying people whose
contributed to RFCs with either contact or identification
information. It is explicitly possible when "Contributors"
sections are created and people are listed there, but contact or
iden
On 9/18/13 8:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> There have been (counting me) four sitting ADs posting on this 90-email
> thread, plus another six or so former ADs, including a former IETF
> chair, plus at least six or so WG chairs, plus other participants of
> good mind and good hearts. I'm thinking
Hi Marcia,
On 9/18/13 11:54 AM, IETF Agenda wrote:
>
> You can still use the main reservation links provided on the meeting web page
> at http://www.ietf.org/meeting/88/hotel.html for both the Hyatt and Fairmont,
> but please let me know once you have made your reservation.
>
I have already m
Dear SM,
See comments inline.
On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:00 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> At 21:55 11-09-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> Add to:
>> 11.5.3. Macro Expansion
>> ,---
>> It is not within SPF's purview whether IPv6 or DNSSEC is being used. IPv6
>> (RFC2460) increased the minimum MT
Posting as the responsible AD for the document in question.
On 9/18/13 1:20 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Since this was not understood, I'll attempt to clarify. An effort to keep
these conversations fairly concise seems to lead to a level of confusion with
those not familiar with DNS.
I'm af
--On Thursday, September 19, 2013 07:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote:
> ...
>> It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY
>> for the authors of a draft, and the IETF "reminder" system
>> seems to be focused solely on authors. The duty
At 11:18 18-09-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Characterization of Proposed Standards'
as Best Current
Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on thi
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 17:22 -0400 Alan Clark
wrote:
> John, Brian
>
> Most standards organizations require that participants who
> have, or whose company has, IPR relevant to a potential
> standard, disclose this at an early stage and at least prior
> to publication.
>
> The part
HI/pleas dont email for me egain
tanks
29 matches
Mail list logo
