Iljitsch,
My comfort level would be much higher if by the time that we need the
extra address space, we have a fighting chance of actually being able to
use it. So I think it would be a good idea to make it very clear that
implementations must, in the absence of more specific information, regar
Fred,
At 11:22 AM 7/22/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 08:55 AM 07/22/04 -0400, Soliman Hesham wrote:
Try to get a direct flight or through San Francisco.
I hear that. But (west coast perspective...) I avoid SFO like the plague.
When fog sets in, they shut down one runway, and flights throughout the US
Bill,
At 03:46 AM 7/30/2004, Bill Manning wrote:
clearly different rules apply, depending on whom makes the submission.
for example, several individual submissions were made before this
IETF and we (the authors) were told that we -MUST- use the name of
one of th eauthors in the draft name... howeve
Florian,
At 11:51 AM 08/11/2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Pekka Savola:
> The justification is simple: any "magic" packets which all routers on
> the path must somehow examine and process seems a very dubious concept
> when we want to avoid DoS attacks etc.
Any packet with IP options is more or less
Harald,
My take (which is obviously biased) is that the number of NAT devices 2
years from now is likely to be significantly larger than the number of NAT
devices currently deployed.
And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF recommendations
for NAT devices make manufacturers who
My current view is that the housing the IETF administrative activity in
ISOC (Scenario O) is the best of the two approaches.
Note: I have no position in the ISOC nor am a current member (or maybe they
do not have members these days). My employer is a corporate member. I was
a member when the
Thomas,
At 06:52 PM 11/04/2004, Thomas Narten wrote:
> IESG members whose terms are up are:
> Thomas Narten -- Internet Area
As I have been telling folk informally for a while now, I am stepping
down as Internet AD with the ending of the current term.
I want to publicly thank you for your many year
Ole,
At 03:03 PM 11/16/2004, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Indeed.
People polled after the election said they put Moral Values as the #1
priorty. I see no reason why the previous and next administration won't
make a morality section a requirement in all published docs.
We should be proactive and create a mo
At this point, less than one week before the meeting, only 14 WGs (not
counting BOFs) have agendas posted. I'm at a loss for a suitable adjective.
You might start by asking the secretariat why all the agendas which have
been submitted haven't been posted... I know of two working groups which
h
Dave,
Here's my own take:
It is empty bureaucracy. It is form, without content. It is additional
effort, with no benefit.
It is reasonable and necessary to require that documents contain
important considerations. This is not accomplished by having pro forma
sections lacking content.
I am
Hi,
Just ask the IPv6 working group if there's an option number available,
and if there's any particular reason thatthis particular option would
do harm to IPv6. Assuming they answer "yes, all the option numbers
aren't currently allocated" and "no, we can just ignore this option if
we see it,
Keith,
At 05:40 AM 06/28/2005, Keith Moore wrote:
My personal opinion is that it's quite reasonable to require IESG approval
of an IP-level option. IMHO the IESG should solicit public input before
making such a decision, probably in the form of a Last Call. But the
potential for harm is such
Brian,
We propose that, for an initial period of 6 months, a member of
the community will be added to regular IESG meetings as a "recording
secretary" who will write narrative minutes of the discussions,
which will be posted publicly after IESG review for accuracy.
(As always, personnel discussi
David,
I was looking more for an explanation of how and why it was decided to
be out of scope.
The arguments for considering it to be in scope would have been:
- the TCP and UDP "pseudo-headers" needed to be changed anyway to
accomodate IPv6 addresses (see section 8.1 of RFC 2460);
- the
Spencer,
At 03:18 PM 07/26/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
This draft (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt )
does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership
continuity and next-generation leadership development.
I have previo
Hi Bill,
At 02:55 PM 09/16/2005, Bill Manning wrote:
sorry, the I-D has no information as to where this should be discussed... so:
Umm, from the file name I would have thought V6OPS is the intended venue to
discuss it.
draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt
Suggesting moving any
John,
reminders may not have been noticed -- I've only occasionally found
the network stable enough in the meeting sessions to make use of
jabber rooms effective and useful in following what is going on.
I agree. In the IPv6 w.g. session our jabber scribe couldn't do
anything useful.
B
I really like the current schedule. When it is over for the day it
is over, as opposed to the old schedule where there were sessions
after dinner. I hope we keep it.
That said, having coffee/tea/sodas/etc. the whole day would be
great. The cookies could still only be at the long afternoo
Lucy and IAOC,
As John Klenson, said we don't live in a perfect world. I think the
trust agreement as written solves some very important problems we
have now (e.g., getting rights to things like the IETF's domain name,
past meeting proceedings, email archives, etc.). It is probably not
Russ and the IESG,
I generally support this proposal. However, I think you have made it
too complex. Specifically, you have three states, where I think only
two are required.
> o Approved - The errata is appropriate under the criteria below and
> should be available to implementors
Hi,
Let me see if I understand this.
- This is the specification for SMTP. It's was first used on the
Arpanet.
- It is probably as widely deployed as IP and TCP. Maybe more so.
- It works (e.g., the email discussing this thread was sent via SMTP).
- The IETF is now advancing it to Draft St
Jason,
On Mar 2, 2006, at 7:44 AM, ext Livingood, Jason wrote:
Does this section mean that 802.11a is specifically not supported?
Any
idea if the wifi network at the Dallas meeting will be better than in
Vancouver?
The true test will be the meeting itself, but we are working hard to
try
The IETF65 network is deployed and operational. We are supporting
IPv4 and IPv6. There is wireless running throughout the hotel (ssid
is ietf65). The wireless supports IEEE 802.11a and 802.11b.
You can find detailed information about the network on the IETF 65
website:
http://www.iet
Per standard operating procedure the IETF65 network will be coming
down promptly at Noon on Friday. This includes the public areas,
meeting rooms, terminal room, and servers.
At that time the Hilton wireless service will switch back to the
"HHonors". Attendies who are staying at the Hilto
Lakshminath,
By the way, last I checked "liaisons" are "not voting members." In
one of the nomcoms I was in, the liaisons were allowed to vote in
straw polls. It was a terrible idea. It negates the checks and
balances we have put into the nomcom process, for instance no more
than 2 peo
Danny,
What The liaisons are there to provide additional
information, not directly influence the outcome.
Do you have more information on this? If this is true, I think
the result from that Nomcom is questionable. I think this needs
to be investigated and the result be made public.
Jim,
Have no fear, the Chicago network will have IPv6 connectivity (as
we always have). It's likely to be natively routed out through I2,
though the kind offer of a tunnel will be held in reserve, should
we have a problem with that. :-)
Good to hear! Many kudos to the folks putting toge
John,
Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it
deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both
* get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly,
with and without local/auto config.
* get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who wa
Thomas,
A few additions to your description of how we got to where we are now
email.
RFC3177, where the /48 recommendation was made, used the H ratio
analysis to explain why a /48 was acceptable. However the IETF did
not make any recommendation to the RIRs that the H ratio (current
ver
In any case, I would much rather have seen that published and later
declared Historic than hold up all other RFCs. It isn't as if the
IETF can control what actually gets implemented and deployed
in any case - so why on earth does it *matter*? Whereas getting
the vast majority of RFCs published p
Before we head further down this track, do we have any data as to how
big a problem we are thinking of fixing?
Since the IETF has been producing RFCs, how many have been appealed
in the 2 months after IESG approval? I would like to see the actual
numbers. Does this happen 10%, 1%, .1%, .0
Harald,
Based on the past record, we're talking about something that
happens 0.58% of the time, or less.
Of course, predicting the future from the past is iffy; there have
been 10 appeals in 2006 and only one (not document related) in
2007, so "it varies".
Thanks for looking at the data
Hi,
I have been on the IAOC for about a year and wanted to explain my
view how the IAOC decides to to have an IETF meeting in a specific
location. I thought this might be useful given the discussion about
IETF72 in Dublin. This is my personal view, not anything official
from the IAOC.
F
Harald,
- Send out a revised version some time after San Francisco
- Issue a four-week Last Call for BCP on the document once discussion has
stabilized
- Approve it for BCP before the Vienna IETF
I don't think it is appropriate for the IESG to approve it's own
charter. We don't let working gr
Harald,
At 07:35 AM 3/18/2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Harald,
At 09:10 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, you wrote:
On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF
financials.
I have a few questions and comments on this presentation.
Do we have a real budget for 2003? Or are the
Randy,
At 10:12 AM 3/18/2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> I second Margaret Wasserman's suggestion that the 2003 budget information
> should be made public.
i doubt anyone disagrees. but i am not sure fortec has one. now that
we actually have back numbers, forward management seems a good, though
not nov
John,
The evidence is that, if it became clear that a serious effort was
developing to deploy such filters, the spammers would start sending
conforming messages more rapidly than the filters could actually be spun
up. Would this inconvenience them, or the authors of spam tools? Yes,
but almo
Jordi,
Yes, I agree this is long overdue.
Bob
At 04:05 AM 8/21/2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Completely agree, even is time (overdue) to get ALL the IETF/ISOC related
sites with IPv6 support !
Regards,
Jordi
Randy,
as bernard pointed out a while ago, the lack of a review of, and
reference to, the [should be] known literature is notable in many
classes of ietf work and an embarrassing number of internet
drafts.
I think the expression that applies to parts of the IETF community is
something like, inste
Itojun,
At 06:43 PM 10/14/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt does not have IPR clause on it,
even though cisco claims to have patent related to it.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec.txt
I wasn't aware of this claim
Keith,
Maybe that's the real problem - people think they are paying for the
wireless network as part of the conference fee, when the reality (as I
understand it) is that a substantial part of the cost of the wireless
network comes from sponsors, donors, and/or volunteers.
The network (i.e., intern
See, that's the classic mistake: Everyone wants to divide the entire
address space RIGHT NOW, without any clue as to how the world will
evolve in years to come. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it certainly
That not correct. See:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space
Where it say
At 11:50 AM 1/18/2004, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
> non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
> new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs. (Making Internet Drafts into an
> archival series seems like a terrible idea to
Harald,
Despite that it has been commented in this list some time ago, I still
see that the list of attendees is open, and there is no option, when
registering to indicate if you want to be there or not ?
I don't really mind myself, but we should have this option, at least this
is my understanding
Dennis,
>I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of
>my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee
>for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee
>but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, th
Tim,
>If you can point me to a production-quality Windows 98 IPv6 stack,
>I would be happy to try to install it on my laptop, and maybe even
>run it at the next IETF meeting and help you with your migration
>project. (Oh, and make sure wireless works.)
What I did on my laptop was to upgrade to
The following are the pages for the IPng working group.
http://playground.sun.com/ipng
Bob
At 10:23 AM 10/18/2000 +0800, luoyan wrote:
>Hello,
> may I have your attention please?
> I want to know the information about IPV6,can you help me ?
I find it amusing that this debate on how to handle "congestion" at IETF
meetings mirrors the technical debate on congestion in the Internet. The
two sides still seem to be "more bandwidth" or "apply QOS".
Bob
>However, I have to observe that this strange thing called ARPANET
>appears to be using private addresses :-)
I think it was Danny Cohen who said that in the US the private networks are
public and the public networks are private.
Bob
Anthony,
>Why? Their costs are based on the amount of capacity used, not the number of
>computers connected. A transfer volume of 1 GB per month costs the
>company the
>same whether it is carried out by one computer or ten computers.
If they charge per computer they get more revenue without, a
Richard,
The ipng mailing list is working. It is used by the working group to
develop the IPv6 protocol, but it is not used to debate the need for
IPv6. To me the IETF list is an appropriate place for that debate.
Bob
At 12:30 PM 11/29/2001, Zoch, Richard (TIFS) wrote:
>Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] b
>
>I actually think our scheduling is within epsilon of optimal. Five days
>(currently Sunday evening - Friday morning) seems to be about as much
>as we can handle anyway. No matter which day of the week we end on,
>many people are going to leave a bit early, and the last meeting slot
>is going
Ran,
> Proprietary is a commonly used term to describe something that does
>not have a full, complete, and open specification -- which is the
>current state of IS-IS. Now folks (including me) are trying to fix
>that issue by publishing sundry non-standard RFCs on how the as-deployed
>IS-
Michael,
Nokia is hosting the Atlanta IETF. While there is no social, we have
ordered a number of t-shirts.
Bob
At 11:48 AM 11/6/2002, Michael Richardson wrote:
Based upon the agenda, and lack of a button, it looks like there is
no social event. I don't have a problem with this at all, actual
We are seeing some of the usual problems with the wireless support at
IETF55 in Atlanta. To help mitigate the problems:
1) Make sure you laptop is configured with SSID of IETF55
2) Do not allow your laptop to run in peer-to-peer mode. Set it to Access
Point only mode.
We are seeing many no
Since a few people are asking questions that were answered in the original
email, here is a link to the mail that was sent to ietf-announce on October 22,
2012:
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=11277&tid=1351092666
I thought this would be helpful since it was only
The draft that proposes changes to the RFC3777/BCP10 to deal with vacancies is
now available.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00
Bob
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Reply-to: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:
bership on subcommittees, and,
of course, one less voice in discussions in the IAOC and IETF trust. Having
fewer people increases the work load on everyone else and creates less
diversity in views and expertise.
Bob Hinden
IAOC Chair
>
> Dale
Géza,
On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> Olaf and all,
>
>
> First: I cannot help to think there is a personal tragedy behind all this. I
> hope Marshall makes it back to this community because I will miss him.
>
Same here.
>
>
> Exactly. This is why I hope that some of
Sam,
On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I offer my signature to the recall petition. I am nomcom eligible.
>
> At this point, I believe the recall process is the correct process to
> follow unless there is an approved BCP update.
> In a case where there's been no contact and there'
these will be included in the minutes of the 25 October 2012 IAOC call.
Bob
>
> From: Bob Hinden
> Subject: Results of IAOC E-Vote to Approve sending an email about the IAOC
> Vacancy to IETF Announce
> Date: October 22, 2012 8:08:27 AM PDT
> To: i...@ietf.org
> Cc: Bo
as given
> Marshal
> the full opportunity to start participating again or to resign and he has
> done neither -
> it is time to move
+1
Bob
>
> Scott
>
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>> At 06:01 PM 11/1/2012, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
The IAOC site team is planning to visit several potential venues early next
year in Latin America / South America. We are open to suggestions for
potential venues to evaluate.
Thanks,
Bob
On Nov 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> about your suggestion, it is my todo list.
>
> if i ca
Arturo,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 13:31, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Bob,
>
>Nice to hear that.
>
>I will send off-list to the IAOC some venues, possible hosts and people
> that could help in finding a good place.
Thanks,
Bob
>
> Regards
> as
>
> On 1
On Nov 28, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I
>> think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact.
>
> i am not so sure it's a problem. email is a great miscommunication
> mechanism. so mailing lists go disfunctio
Hannes,
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 8:01 PM, SM wrote:
>
>> There are people contributing to a working group who are not subscribed to
>> the mailing list. There are probably people who are not actively following
>> a working group who might a
Keith,
On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
>> 3.4. Slide Sharing
>>
>>Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting.
>>WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed by the
>>remote participants. T
AB,
On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> On 2/12/13, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has
>>> no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I
>>> misunderstand your point,
>>>
>> Once an RFC number is issued
Hi,
> Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting
> that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the
> community can have additional information for providing feedback to the
> Nomcom.
I agree with Dave on this.
I try to give feedback on
Eric,
On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote:
> Bob,
>
> This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give
> feedback on someone
> you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
>
> I would think that - if you don't know somebody
To raise this discussion up a bit, I can think two other related reasons why
there may be less corporate diversity in the IETF.
The first is that it's possible to build applications and businesses that take
advantage of the Internet without having to come to the IETF to standardize
anything.
AB,
On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> RFC6921>It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time
> slows down.
> AB> I know that time slows for something when it is in speed of light,
> but communication is not something moving. If the packet is in speed
> of lig
Loa,
On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Bob,
>
> thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed
> in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
> packets that was sent in the future already now?
See Section 5. It may be already
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,
>
Pete,
On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the IETF
> list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the entire
> contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request:
>
> On 6/10/13 1:45
1:12 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> Hi Bob Hinden, and IETF management
>
> I attended a presentation of IAOC in IETF last-meeting. I have send
> you the below message which you did not reply so far (was waiting for
> three months). Please note that this is my last reminder (will
Lloyd,
On Jul 2, 2013, at 4:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
> succeed?
Appeals are listed at:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
Bob
>
> If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Michael Edward McNeil wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:28, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> wrote:
>
> (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this
> harder for Americans.)
>
>
> Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why wo
could help the IETF.
I hope this is helpful.
Bob Hinden
IAOC Chair
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Ralph,
On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> So, with all this discussion, I'm still not clear what to expect. When I
> walk up to a train ticket kiosk in Schiphol, should I expect to be able to
> use my US-issued, non-chip credit card (AMEX, VISA - I don't care as long as
> *one*
ehind and will try hard to get caught up between now and Maastricht.
Bob Hinden
IAOC Chair
On May 29, 2010, at 5:28 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, May 28, 2010 10:15 -0700 IETF Administrative
> Director wrote:
>
>> All;
>>
>> The IAOC is consider
Mike,
> Going back to the IAOC, I would ask whether this requirement was known at the
> time of the previous Beijing discussion? If so, why wasn't it brought up at
> that point in time and as part of the discussion on venue acceptability. If
> it was added later, when was it added, and why wa
John,
> It is hard, and maybe impossible, to argue against the IETF
> having an established privacy policy, so I agree with Melinda's
> "about time".
>
> However, while administering such a policy (to the degree to
> which such a thing is needed) is a reasonable task for the IETF
> community to a
Alissa,
No hats on, these are my personal views.
I have now read the draft. My overall comment is that I am not convinced if
this is needed and am sympathetic to the views expressed on the mailing list
that this is solving a problem the IETF doesn't have.
Comments below.
Bob
General commen
On Jul 24, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> John Levine asked:
>
>> Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate in some or
>> all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely anonymous. Is this
>> a reasonable expectation?
>
> No. Anonymous or pseudon
meetings. WG chair and authors
might have a longer history.
I think an important part of the meeting rotation is to equalize the travel
cost/pain for most attendees. This would point to actual current attendance
more than say w.g. chairs.
Bob
Bob
>
> Thanks - Mike
>
&g
Dave,
> These numbers probably need to be correlated with the venue of each meeting.
> One would expect higher Asian attendance at an Asian venue, and so forth.
> Controlling for venue could produce a very different interpretation of the
> numbers.
I think that shows up clearly in the numbers.
; Mike
>
>
>
> At 12:34 AM 8/7/2010, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>
>>> I do note that it seems clear that registration is related to where we
>>> meet. That show up pretty clearly the current data. So jud
Australia 14
>>> S.America 8
>>>
>>> Continentally Local Attendees
>>> Asia 333
>>> Europe 173
>>> N.America 232
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald
>>> ==
>>> Donald E. Eastlake 3r
Mike,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Marshall -
>
> I would suggest that given you've chosen the location based on the assumption
> that Bob's 1/1/1 model is most correct and that its possible that a review of
> the data relative to more persistent attendees or more act
Scott,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize
> the cost of getting our work done, not to minimize the cost for walk-in
> attendees.
I agree.
> However, to measure this, I suggest we count "contributions"
> a
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/11/10 11:05 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
>> I would
>> assume everyone attending an IETF meeting has said something at the
>> meeting (in a session, or in the hall, etc.) that could be construed
>> as a cont
Mike,
> I will note that for any given person asking if a date 4-7 years out is "bad"
> is probably going to get pretty much a "huh? why are you asking me now?" and
> the silence you encountered. In this case, silence isn't so much consent as
> "I have no useful data to convey".
>
> But given
Mike,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> While personally I agree (as in I have no idea what I will be doing in
>> 2017), in order to schedule meetings and avoid conflicts with other
>> organizations I don't see any alternative to set these dates into the
>> future. Once
Scott,
>> - For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to the
>> same place and/or instill a bit of interest
>
> I think it's more to avoid the boredom of the meeting planners. :-)
>
I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new
venue is a lot
Eric,
On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
> Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's? Pre-WWW, having
> publicly available documentation of hard-to-get proprietary protocols was
> certainly useful. However, in today's environment of thousands of
> Internet-connected
ago I might have agreed that publishing
> as an RFC could be useful. However, with a huge plurality of respected,
> non-protocol-publishing venues, all searchable on the web and archived
> forever (thanks archive.org!), all a publication like this does is dilute the
> IETF brand when we
Hi,
To date, I have not seen any comments. The IAOC is putting this on it's agenda
for our call next week.
Bob
On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> The IAOC solicits feedback on the revised Administrative Procedures draft
> that is attached.
>
> An early draf
On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> There are two possibilities here:
>
> 1) The Press Release is accurate in its representation of the IETF
>
> No action is required
>
> 2) Someone on the Internet is wrong
That never happens! Maybe the IETF should start a working group
mple,
to pay for travel expenses for an IAOC member who didn't have any other support
to attend a meeting. Would it help if we said that?
I am somewhat hesitant to create detailed rules for something that hasn't
happened to date.
Bob
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
> ---
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
