One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting writing
drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents
appropriately. This could be a pointer to the xml2rfc information (with
associated RFC), to tools for nroff, etc., but it would be very helpful to
tell po
At 10:54 AM 3/3/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Date: 2005-03-02 16:37
> From: Alia Atlas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting
writing
> drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents
> appropriately.
Me to
Then a pointer from the id-guidelines to there would be perfect.
Alia
At 01:48 PM 3/3/2005, Bob Braden wrote:
Re: formatting RFCs: Please see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html
which is also hyper-linked under Publication at the RFC Editor web site.
A good place to start, if you are
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
> to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
> a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested
> during last week's IESG retreat.)
=> If we do
On 10/4/05, Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Ralph Droms wrote:> To date, I've received 71 offers to participate in NomCom 05. This> represents less than 10% of the 849 individuals who are eligible to> participate. Success of the IETF depends on your participation! If
On 11/15/05, Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for all the stuff that you HAVE thought about, to the point of making
> it happen, of course, and best wishes in your continued thinking...
I strongly agree. What I've seen of the new tools provided is
excellent; they've immediately
I agree. What a great idea for those of us trying to plan bringing family
along or for after/before.
Alia
On Jan 20, 2013 9:53 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote:
> Ray,
>
> I haven't seen much (any?) discussion of this announcement, perhaps a
> first for this group. Anyway, I think it's an excellent
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the
role has grown
over the years.
Alia
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
>>
>> Eggert, Lars wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger wrote:
>>>
I will s
Never been to Buenos Aires - but it sounds like a great idea. I know that
the search has been on for
an acceptable venue in South America for a long while.
Alia
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Andrew G. Malis
> wrote:
> > I think this is
I read SHOULD and RECOMMENDED as different.
SHOULD is how a implementation ought to behave unless there are special
circumstances (deployment, additional functionality, better idea). MUST
says that there are no circumstances special enough to change the behavior.
RECOMMENDED is closer to a Best
Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where we did not
charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly attendance diverged, I
would strongly support at least some meeting fee for remote attendance.
There's also the key fact that the IETF is funded by IETF meeting fees and
ISO
[I have significantly cut down the thread to respond to a couple points.]
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:54 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>
>
> In principle, one could consider the "do we want this" and "what
>> would the criteria be" questions in either order. In practice,
>> I think the former question i
I also think that a 50% replacement rule - or even a 66% replacement
rule would be very useful. The work load is very high, but much of
that is gathering knowledge and opinions on the different candidates.
Since the candidate set from year to year is not disjoint, I think
that the work load for co
Or http://www.cafepress.com/+tcpip_infant_bodysuit,287721854
Alia
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Philip Nesser wrote:
> We obviously need an IETF branded one of these:
> http://www.cafepress.com/+theres_127001_infant_bodysuit,88172
>
>
> ---> Phil
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, IE
Several years ago, when submitting drafts became automated, we used to have
a hard cut-off and be unable to submit new drafts until after IETF.
That caused issues if discussions caused the desire to change/update drafts
during the meeting, then there was no way of having an easily accessible
versi
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 8/24/2011 1:27 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>> Can you start by backing up the assertion that the community has
>> vigrously expressed a preference for interesting venues?
>> I may just need a new IETF community:-)
>>
>
>
> gosh, I hadn't
For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the +1 fashion
recently are primarily people I've known to be active in the IETF for
years - including some WG chairs.
I don't think this is an effort to round up external voters - but
rather encouragement to others inside IETF to publicly sp
Considering that the need for this code point is a result of the ITU
not fully complying with the IETF agreement, I cannot agree that we
should simply allocate a code point for whatever the ITU wants to do
in the future.
It seems the best of the options to allocate a code point (much better
than s
D. If, however, from
> absurd that had happened, would the world stop or would we take the same
> information from the IP header version field?
>
> Regards,
> Rui
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
nt.
Alia
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:58 AM, t.petch wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alia Atlas"
> To: "Rui Costa"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:07 PM
>
> Rui,
>
> Perhaps more familiarity with the related history over the
Mary,
I have to agree. As is common, gender imbalance can be treated as a
joke only by those who
aren't affected.
For those of us without "male privilege" (or other types of course)
who have experienced the effects of subtle or blatant discrimination,
it is no joke.
Nor is it caused by a lack o
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 11:39 AM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
>
>> The tutorials is an interesting idea. I think youtube videos may be
>> effective as well without having to schedule meetings for tutorials.
>>
> Note that I was suggesting tutorials as a
22 matches
Mail list logo
