At 09:51 PM 07/21/04 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
New survey question: How many lunches and dinners did you have at the last
IETF that were NOT meetings?
For me, it is rare to have meals that are not meetings of some sort. And I
often have face-to-face editing sessions on IETF busine
At 09:28 PM 07/21/04 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Any experiences? Is 1.5 or 2 hours (for example) enough at SD?
Any time *I* have been through either CLD or SAN, 90 minutes has been quite
sufficient, and 60 minutes is usually enough for domestic travellers. If I
were checking in at LAX for an int
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
get delayed. And what is San Francisco famous
At 10:55 AM 07/22/04 -0700, Aaron Falk wrote:
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the IETF
meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria for
what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even nudge
groups into making some additiona
At 04:29 PM 08/17/04 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Why is the list of internet standards so hard to find?
I dunno. I tend to look for the most recent one in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc-index.txt. The most recent one I find is
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3700.txt.
Or, alternatively, I have a
At 06:55 AM 09/02/04 -0700, Carl Malamud wrote:
Perceptions are always important. Under Scenario's A and B, likewise,
the Internet Society probably gets to be a target.
The ISOC is a target anyway, as the RFCs have a copyright notice in them
with ISOC's name in it.
_
important additional layers. As you said, the IETF's appointees to the
ISOC board function first and foremost as ISOC board members, not as
IETF's representatives. This is the same for all the board members.
The IETF appointees to the board have functioned extremely well on
behalf of ISOC.
At 08:09 PM 09/07/04 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Scenario B includes the MOU mechanism as one of the choices for defining a
relationship between ISOC and the IETF.
for the record, I think the relationship between ISOC and IETF needs to be
stated in any case. We have RFC 2031 now, but it is d
At 03:21 PM 09/09/04 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
1 - The IETF exists, and it is the IETF community.
Even though we have carefully avoided defining its boundaries, I believe
that we all believe that the IETF exists. And it's obvious that if the
people who do the technical work leave, the
At 10:19 AM 11/05/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I'm stepping down as IETF chair in March, and I am not a candidate for
reappointment.
It's been a great four years, containing lots of learning experience, lots
of hard work and lots of joy - but after four years as IETF chair, and ten
Guys - please...
maybe it's just me, but it seems like this thread should be something about
Harald. Coopting it to the continued wars between various competing
technology religions seems just a tad disrespectful.
Could you at least change the subject line if we're going to go into this
rathole
P" means "Asia/Pacific") in addition to the IETF list, but
Franck is in fact doing this.
Franck, I'll see if I can talk with someone at Yahoo for you. This seems a
reasonable request, especially given that Yahoo is a popular mail service
among customers in digitally divided
At 09:36 AM 11/15/04 -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
The protocol distribution is different now, though still not showing much
SMTP compared to HTTP, etc.
:^)
Like any other internet link, it changes from millisecond to millisecond.
large components tend to include "tcp-other", http, and so on.
It w
At 01:33 PM 11/15/04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm.. what *exactly* is upstream of that interface? I strongly suspect
that it's *heavily* influenced by *local* preferences/configuration.
:^)
Care to speculate on the existence of any measurement point in the internet
that is not heavily infl
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
In
ave
heretofore agreed. By treating them on a cash basis rather than an accrual
basis, this section seems maximize the pain they cause.
I wonder whether the IETF would consider talking with ISOC's accounting
office to normalize these issues now, and whether the problem really needs
to
At 10:15 PM 11/17/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The effect of section 5, if I am reading it correctly, is to transfer
these budgetary bumps and grinds to the IASA rather than allowing the
ISOC to help out, making "oops, we're low on cash" something that has to
be discussed as opposed
At 11:21 AM 11/18/04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth
ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it
to be transparent and explicit.
Actually, that's the opposite of what I was pointing out. I was pointing
out th
At 09:44 AM 11/22/04 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Who needs market research? All you have to do is look at the cost-feature
profile of the most popular NATs and notice who they were designed for.
Those vendors have already done the market research and bet real money on
the results.
Yes, but be
At 08:33 AM 11/22/04 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
The one address you actually do care about is that of the server you
mentioned. If the server is behind the NAT, you have a configuration on
the Linksys that translates a certain set of TCP and UDP port numbers when
addressed to the Linksys to the
At 12:35 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
One potentially technical hurdle here is the way that the device discovers
that a range/block of addresses is available to it. Some kind of DHCP
sub-lease, or maybe a collection of options (is it a range of addresses or
an actual subnet? how big is
At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It
continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues
will focus attention on the obvious question ..what is it going to cost me?
Is there any way the engin
At 01:13 PM 11/22/04 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Fred, while I agree completely with this, we all need to understand that
it has another implication. If the customer is offered a snazzy new IPv6
device, using public address space, that fails to offer "plug it in and it
will work", then the cu
At 12:10 PM 11/22/04 -0800, Chris Palmer wrote:
There's another feature of NAT that is desirable that has not yet been
mentioned, and which at least some customers may be cognizant of: the
fact that NAT is a pretty restrictive firewall.
would that it were true. In fact, it is pretty easy to breech.
The important point I was trying to make were that section 5 of the
document seems to be ratholing on details of the accounting structure and
timing of deposits while potentially missing important high-level concerns
and failing to demonstrate an understanding of ISOC's current accounting
struc
As near as I can tell, there is no argument that IETF money or assets
should be kept for use by/on behalf of the IETF - should not be spent on
other things, and should be accounted for appropriately. The language you
reference seems to deal with various ways to phrase that. However it is
phrase
At 07:53 AM 12/09/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Do we need to make a global pass of s/account/accounts/?
I think so.
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 03:08 PM 12/12/04 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
"This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the
concurrent <>"
The usual way this is done, by ISOC, is by resolution; note that the
statement you proposed is in the form of a resolution. For examples, you
might review 96-11
At 01:40 PM 12/12/04 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
Is the IETF making itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISOC, or is the
IETF contracting with ISOC to do some services for the IETF.
I don't see either happening, and perhaps this is part of the disconnect.
The latter is clearly what Carl's document
At 12:22 PM 12/14/04 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
I would certainly add my voice in support of the Internet Society adopting
a specific resolution of adoption of this document (the IASA BCP,
referenced, as Scott mentions, by its RFC number). This is clear
demonstration of a level of organizational
At 03:06 PM 12/14/04 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
I believe we strongly agree here.
Outstanding!
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ted donations could exceed
the IASA costs that the ISOC will be responsible to cover.
Regards,
Fred Baker
/=====/
| Fred Baker |1121 Via Del Rey |
|
At 04:56 PM 12/23/04 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Maybe we should merge the 2 issues into one?
sure
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:36:10 -0500
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-alert-system-00.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Structure of an International Emergency Alert
System
Author(s) : F. Baker, B. Carpent
At 04:54 PM 01/12/05 +1100, Greg Daley wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe that there is an actively monitored tsunami
service in the Indian ocean, which may have been able to transfer such
warnings. The role of a generic, authenticated, internet-based warning
system may be useful in future th
The ISOC board has been following the development of the Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) Internet Draft and some of the
board members have been participating in the discussion. The board feels
that this draft is something that the board can readily agree to support
At 09:33 AM 01/19/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
Again, I don't have any concerns about how these issues are met, but I
want us to be very, very clear on what we are asking for from ISOC.
I think also that we need to be very sure that we know what the BCP is.
What your words above - and other commen
This is a follow up to Harald's message of Jan 10.
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33578.html)
Section 7 of the -04 version of the Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) Internet-Draft mentions that any (positive) balance
in the IASA accounts (among
RIAA sues 83-year-old grandmother who never owned a computer. Case
dismissed when daughter reveals she's been dead for over a month.
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/02/04/music_industry_sues_83_year_old_dead_woman/
___
Ietf mailing list
Iet
At 11:57 PM 02/06/05 -0500, Robert Kahn wrote:
If you think there is a concern about liability for the IAOC, then you
should have similar concerns about the IETF leaderhship, since they would
also need coverage for their activities.
Thanks for pointing that out, Bob. They have indeed had such cov
Ted:
The suggestions ISOC made were pursuant to our lawyer's comments, so they
tend to have something to do with legalese. We are asking Skadden&Arps to
reply to your note. But let me interject...
At 09:56 AM 02/09/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
Some comments, using Harald's diff as a starting poin
At 05:12 PM 02/10/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
I think the lawyer's desire for the word "managed" vs "controlled" is
seeking legal clarity in the terminology here. "Managed" is the usual
word for what the IAOC does in this context, and "controlled" isn't.
I agree that "managed" is what the IAOC do
At 11:11 PM 02/11/05 -0500, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Adding the language you suggested would mean that IASA could not buy
royalty-bearing or installment-fee software.
Adding the part about "irrevocability" would mean that the licensor could
not terminate the license if IETF breached. While this w
So we checked with our lawyer. Unlike the IETF, which is always completely
smooth in its consensus and never finds experts differing in opinion, it
would appear that in the legal profession experts can differ in their opinions.
That said, he classed the issue as, in IETF terms, the difference be
Yes. Kudos to both of them.
At 10:19 AM 02/16/05 -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Katie Hafner has a pretty good story on it in today's NYT, too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/technology/16internet.html
Congratulations to Vint and Bob! I know they've both collected a lot of
honours already, but I
On Apr 27, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output
from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem by
changing how IESG works.
I agree and disagree. We have rather a history of ADs sitting on
documents and of A
On Apr 28, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often
enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some
other WG.
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back
on documents with technical flaws
A couple of thoughts...
I'll buy #1.
On #2, when an AD posts a DISCUSS, s/he is now required to post a
comment to the id tracker. I don't think you want the AD to have to
write it twice. Coming back to a comment that was made earlier (and has
been made on [EMAIL PROTECTED], which IMHO is a bette
The IAB+IESG selection draft is a good start at a selection procedure
and set of guidelines. It does not address (and I suspect is not
intended to address) how ISOC and nomcom appointees to the IAOC relate
to the process or what their qualifications might be. I wonder,
however, if that is a
from my very humble perspective, it is actually useful to test a -00
draft. The more revisions a draft goes through, the more reticent and
author becomes to change it. Getting the test done early makes that job
easier.
On Jun 10, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Bill Fenner wrote:
On 6/9/05, Bruce Lilly <
On Jun 24, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Liqiang((Larry)) Zhu wrote:
I also assume it is especially difficult to get the visa for folks who
are not US citizens.
why would that be?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
RFC 2434 doesn't discuss null IANA sections at all. RFC2434bis does
discuss them, and we will need to form consensus about whether the RFC
Editor is required to retain them, as we discuss RFC2434bis. Which we
need to do fairly soon.
In my "
On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
This is exactly what I predicted would happen - the IANA
considerations section has now become part of the boilerplate in at
least one I-D template. (Actually make that two - I put in in my own
equivalent template some time back.)
This opens the
On Jul 6, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
This memo adds no new IANA considerations. The presence of this
template text indicates that the author/editor has not actually
reviewed IANA considerations.
I like it. Consider my template to have changed.
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I respectfully disagree. I think that someone implementing or
deploying a given specification may well wonder whether any
IANA-assigned values are relevant, and the absence of a null section
in an RFC doesn't help with that.
Personally, I
A committee is accepting nominations for the IEEE Internet Award. It
may be presented annually to an individual or team of up to three for
exceptional contributions to the advancement of Internet technology
for network architecture, mobility and/or end-use applications.
In the evaluation proc
yes. those that built the integrated services model felt that it was
appropriate for internet telephony to have a way to test the capacity
available for a real time data stream, and if capacity wasn't
available, to say "no". Those who have worked in ieprep have pointed
out that absent such
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 13, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has further compounded
> the problem by creating interoperable standards for security, which
> have enabled hosts on the Internet to protect traffic en
On Mar 14, 2008, at 8:01 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Challenge for our IT folks: Internationalized Internet Drafts,
> including file names. Doable?
It's doable, no doubt. The next question is whether this is actually
smart.
The Finnish character set is something I can deal with, although my
k
On Mar 17, 2008, at 8:34 AM, SM wrote:
> There is an expectation that the information provided to the
> nominating committee is confidential. The confirming body needs some
> information to determine whether the candidate fits the stated
> requirements.
There is a simple solution to that. The
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it
> is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info,
> between nomcom and confirming body.
>
> Step up a level: wonder where this discussion is leading to?
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be
> modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust
> falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself
> ceases to exist).
The concept makes sen
On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging
> it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could
> then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right
> people to populate it (for example). It c
OC IAOC Appointee
> 5. IAD
http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html:
Bob Hinden, appointed by the IAB - bob.hinden at nokia.com
Ole Jacobsen, appointed by the IESG - ole at cisco.com
* Fred Baker, appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees - fred at
cisco.com
* Russ Housley, the IETF Cha
So you're saying that the indictment (which as described does not
constitute a conviction and therefore is not case law) is relevant if
someone creates an identity for the purpose of deluding others, uses
it to inflict emotional distress, and the result is the suicide of a
member of the dis
On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples
> used to indicate that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
It seems that this gives 2606 more weight than it claims. What it
claims is, quoting its abstract:
On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
> decided that an informal strawpoll was
On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)"
I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very good excuse
not doing X might do. One known very good excuse is Y."
That is more or less my definition of "should". I say something "must
ne, 2008 07:59 -0400 Scott Brim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/25/08 5:37 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)"
I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very goo
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at using
the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think -
we have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a number of drafts in ou
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at
using the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I
On Jul 21, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Anyone promoting a point of view is going to find an example to
support it. What we need, instead, is a sense of "typical", to use
as the base for our consideration. Yes, we also need to consider
outliers, but we need to treat them as suc
IMHO, defining things to a gnat's eyelash is mostly employment for
lawyer-wannabes, and doesn't necessarily help in reality.
"Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any communications
vehicle that enables participants to meet without having to travel,
and which they all agree to. Coul
On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
marratech was aquired by google in 2005 , so i guess its not
available anymore ( was java by the way and a bit slow )
I keep hearing this, and I use it every week. Someday I'll figure out
why people say this.
___
On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was
due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really
sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course.
To be honest, I think IPv6 has bee
I seem to be in the minority, but I object.
This results, if I understand correctly, from the dispute that JCK had
with the IESG a little while ago. Basically, someone on the IESG felt
that rules of this sort should apply, an update to an existing
specification didn't conform, and they obje
On Nov 14, 2008, at 7:36 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
I just added my name to the database. What I would REALLY like is to
just have my badge scanned when I enter a meeting room instead of
signing a blue sheet.
That would have required Henning and/or Athar to coordinate with the
Secretariat b
I'm OK with these changes being done by the RFC Editor during the
final processing, or I can pick them up in an update if someone prefers.
On Nov 16, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
Magnus, Fred, James, Martin,
I'm happy now.
I liked the bullets at the end of S.2.2 that define the mini
The folks to contact are the IAOC. The IETF Chair is on the IAOC.
As to visa issues, as Randy opines, the issue tends to be visa
processing. Depending on country pair, there are interesting issues
around the globe. The US Embassies in China and Russia seem to not
have IETF attendance on the
On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote:
I think it would be good for people that were trying to come to the
IETF and couldn't to tell the IAD or me what happened. Accurate data
is very important.
I spoke with colleagues at Tsinghua last night. Apparently some 30
On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to the
U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S.
My understanding, which others should corroborate, is that it relates
to specific countries. China is the on
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-
pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term
implications about what is being discussed.
Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of
though
Did you review the slides I discussed during the behave working group
meeting as to what I view as the principal value of the technology? If
not, may I suggest that you obtain them from
ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/gse/behave-nat66-gse.pdf
At this point, given the amount of discussion that
I'll repeat what said in behave a few days ago. I think this
capability actually gives the e2e guys (whom I count myself among) 99%
of what they are looking for while giving rrg-etc, which is to say
"the ISPs", 99% of what they're looking for.
GSE/8+8 gives us the ability to manage the add
you might take a look at he nat66 document and the behave IPv4/IPv6
documents. they're pretty different.
On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behaves
exactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother to
On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat
host based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and
caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.
We built a number of networks like those in the
Silly question. Is this discussion more appropriate to ietf-ipr?
One could argue that ietf-ipr looked at this question for two years
prior to submitting the new boilerplate, and by missing it made it
clear that they weren't adequate to review. That said, there was also
an IETF last call, an
For the record, I have sent the following email to the IAD, signed
using my PGP key. I would encourage others to send similar notes.
From: Fred Baker
Date: December 18, 2008 2:56:20 PM PST
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: Trustees
Subject: RFC 5378 representation
I, Fred Baker, am one of the
So, having just cleared this note with the Trustees, sending it in,
and forwarding the note to the IETF list, I observe http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Contributor_Non-Exclusive_License_RFC5378.pdf
.
By all means, folks, use the form.
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
For the
On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:02 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Some of these RFC were written when you were working for ACC. This
is a fairly common situation among us. I have written RFC as an
employee of INRIA, Bellcore/Telcordia, and Microsoft. Just curious,
did you check with whoever bought ACC
You asked me to make this comment publicly, so here it is.
In my opinion, we need a 5378-bis that keeps the good bits but
corrects the issue that has been problematic. The question before the
house is how best to achieve that. The proposal here is to provide a
work-around that enables an in
So what I hear (and for the benefit of others, let me note that you
and I have ha a fairly detailed discussion privately that I think I am
summarizing the result of) is that you want a short term solution and
a long term solution. The short term solution would be adequately
solved by using
Thanks to the nominating committee for all its efforts!
On May 1, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
I am pleased to announce that the 2005-2006 NomCom selection and
confirmation process to fill the IAB vacated by Pekka Nikander's
resignation
is complete. At this time, on behalf of the Nom
On May 31, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If an AD or the IESG makes a mistake, there is also an appeals
mechanism available. There isn't any documented appeals mechanism
for IAB decisions. Should there be?
Actually, there is. See section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026. As with an appeal
On May 31, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Bill Fenner wrote:
Do you read that as being able to say "the IAB made a mistake in
their (RFC Editor selection|liaison management|other IAB-assigned
task)"? I read it as being able to say "the IAB upheld my appeal
to the IESG because RFC 2026 supports them, bu
On Jun 7, 2006, at 12:03 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This is the negative side of the discussion going on.
People are focusing on reasons why someone might want to be
included in acknowledgements. I am merely pointing out that
it is also possible that someone might not want this.
Underst
I took a cab. fixed price, $35 Canadian, gets you there no muss no fuss.
On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 6-jul-2006, at 3:08, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Airport shuttles:
Unfortunately the Delta doesn't seem to qualify for a free
shuttle. The
nearest is probably the Q
If you like, you may use ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/drafts.html. It is created daily (well, nightly) from http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-index.txt.On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The IETF Web site goes for terrible to worse. It is bad enough that the site is design
On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:18 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
I'd also like to note that our specifications are not atomic;
advancing from PS to DS means showing at least two interworking
implementations of every feature and option.
Yes. The questions, at least in my mind, are:
(1) what does it tak
On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG
has at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a
document may move to Standard (which replaces Draf
1 - 100 of 487 matches
Mail list logo
