On Oct 24, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Barry Leiba
wrote:
>
> 2:
>For vacancies due to uncontested, sustained absence, the IETF body
>making that determination will issue an Extended Last Call to the
>community.
>
> Where is "Extended Last Call" defined? There should be a citation thither,
I have not followed all of this thread but, in case someone had not already
mentioned it, acknowledging major contributors
is required, but not lessor contributors (that is left up to the authors)
see RFC 3978 section 3.4. a
Scott
On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:28 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Abdussalam,
>
> E
better than saying "I have not read the document but I support publication"
I do not see all that much help in having someone list reasons they support
publication unless
there is some particularly wonderful feature or the prose is particularly clear
the reverse is not the case, I think there is
this is an update to the 3979 bis ID that tries to deal with the comments on
the list since the last version
see the changes since section for the list of changes
thanks
Scott & Jorge
Begin forwarded message:
> From:
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-05.txt
> D
while I like to take credit for the good things in RFC 2119 (and disclaim the
bad things) - the
term RECOMMENDED (good or bad) comes from RFC 1122
basically I copied the definition section from RFC 1122 for the 1st version of
what became RFC 2119.
(see http://www.sobco.com/ids/draft-bradner-ke
where is the written justification?
recording a reason will help people in the future understand why this was done
I object to a reclassification without a RFC saying why
Scott
On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:16 PM, IESG Secretary wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual to reclassif
to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do something
it is not required that the process actually be in use before the BCP is adopted
as Mike O'Dell once said, if BCPs had to reflect what was actually being done
we
could never have a BCP defining good manners on the IETF ma
(not voting twice, my other address did not seem to work)
+1
On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
+1.
Ross
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 2:06 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: draft-bdgks-
in the case of IPng, the router people wanted variable length but the host people (or at least some of them) did not
Scott
Scott O Bradner
Senior Technology Consultant
Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
(P) +1 (617) 495 3864
29 Oxford St. Rm 407
Cambridge,
1:49 PM, David Conrad wrote:
I'm curious: how is the IETF stopping ARIN from allocating the space?
Thanks,
-drc
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
(not voting twice, my other address did not seem to work)
+1
On Feb 14, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
+1.
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>> • It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC
>> Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization process. In this
>> way it may also make sense to m
On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>
>>>>• It's probably wo
wfm
On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>
>> just to be clear - saying "final appellate avenue in the standardization
>> process". could be read as meaning
>> that a appeal of a technical decisi
great idea - just does not jive with the legal system which often need
authenticated
copies of documents
Scott
On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
> >> The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests
I don't think that the Note Well note has much to do with what Joe started
talking about
we have had this discussion before
quite a few years ago (pre tools) I suggested moving "expired" IDs to an
"expired IDs" directory
rather than removing them from the IETF public repository as well as posti
is there a reason to not disclose who the individual participant is?
Scott
On Jul 10, 2013, at 5:39 PM, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> the following status changes:
>
> - RFC2050 from Best Current Practice to Historic
>
> The supp
tnx
Scott
On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
>> is there a reason to not disclose who the individual participant is?
>
> No, but actually that text just came from the standard boilerplate for the
> last call text in these cases. In reality has been several people as
but now it overlaps with the newcomers tutorial so I will not be there
Scott
On Jul 16, 2013, at 4:42 PM, The IAOC
wrote:
> The time of the IAOC overview session has changed to 1300-1450 (still in
> Potsdam 1) to
> avoid overlapping with the Newcomers's Meet and Greet.
>
> Bob
>
> On Jul 1
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
