Ole,
the multicast services are provided by the UOregon team supported by a
grant from Cisco (+ some support from ISOC via the IETF Chair's fund).
This grant is in its final year, and the end of the grant is a convenient
time to stop and reconsider exactly what services we (the IETF community)
Dave,
could you please quote people by name?
I certainly believe that I haven't said what you say below. I'd appreciate
it if you give the person who said it the chance to explain him/herself,
since this is just about 180 degrees different from my perception of the
IESG's perception of reality
Dave,
I'm trying to give a constructive response near the end - and it turns out
that a lot of the things you wish for match up with the things I have tried
to start us executing. those who wish to skip the name game can search
for #POSITIVE
--On 4. mars 2004 16:39 +0900 Dave Crocker <
it's me again.
--On 4. mars 2004 10:59 -0800 Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We come to different conclusions here. My conclusion is that no standard
should remain at proposed for more than 2 years unless it's revised.
Either it goes up, it goes away, or it gets revised and goes around
attempt at positive contribution
check out draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp and draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext for a worked
example of "send a verifiable token out with the email without giving away
the password".
there are some interesting corner cases in doing this sort of thing, and
msgtrk ran across
--On 7. mars 2004 17:07 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald,
HTA> In the steady state (30 docs/month, currently), perhaps 30
man-hours/month
30 documents go to Proposed each month?
The steady-state rate of review is the average number of documents that
go to Proposed. (well,
--On 7. mars 2004 15:03 -0800 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fine. Truth in advertising is wonderful. Then
what? From what I can tell, anything that falls
short of perfection then gets summarily
executed. What metrics do you suggest when the
answer is less than perfect that doesn't r
--On 18. februar 2004 18:06 + Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was
taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet) was
the public network accessible through public IPv4 addresses (this predates
IPv6)
--On 8. mars 2004 12:38 -0700 Rick Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a document
advanced is to collect the implementation report.
Hence this modest proposal:
[clip]
I rather like the proposal. What's been lacking is any forum for further
--On 9. mars 2004 22:46 -0600 Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't KNOW that what I'm thinking is true, but I'm wondering to
myself if the target audience for protocol specification maintenance
is all in the IETF...
not all the audience for protocol specification is in the IETF, so
--On 9. mars 2004 19:54 -0800 Randy Presuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I made the comment that I thought we should apply RFC 2026 and force
things to either advance or go historic. Our AD advised us in one case
that if our WG wanted one of its RFCs to go historic, we had to write
another RFC e
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-07.txt
All currently discussed drafts of the IETF are stored in the
"internet-drafts" directory.
Harald
--On 12. mars 2004 10:14 +0800 "Felix, Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have tried to search in the IETF w
John,
I think the things you describe have very many of the same ideals and
targets as draft-loghney-what-standards, currently being discussed in
newtrk, which still needs work and significant input to be converted from
an idea to a workable process - we may have a rare case of singing in
harm
A little more patience might actually be a Good Thing.
I have 3 copies of your mail now, the two first-sent ones have the
following relevant trace entries:
Received: from majordomo by asgard.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.14)
id 1B2LNj-000618-Jl
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 13 Mar 200
Dan,
the internet-drafts submission address is one logical place to contact...
it's possible that they came in as one long text file, and the I-D editor
simply didn't read past page 20. All the stuff they're supposed to check is
on the front page, so that wouldn't surprise me - we've mostly bee
Thank you, Jonathan!
I think this is a good example of "community problem solving" - solve it
once, share, and it's solved for all of us!
Harald
--On 18. mars 2004 12:45 -0500 Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
One of the challenges in producing an Internet Draft is th
The IESG has proposed a change in its present review procedures for IESG
review of documents submitted directly to the RFC Editor for publication.
The IESG will be discussing this in detail, and with the RFC Editor, next
week - the input document for that discussion is published as an I-D below
--On 26. mars 2004 10:26 -0500 Susan Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Copy of the announcement below.
One quick question Harald - am I right that the new procedure applies only
to RFCs, not I-Ds? Any plans in the works for changing the way I-Ds are
reviewed?
Susan,
not sure I understand you.
Thanks John - I will incorporate words based on your concerns in the next
revision!
Harald
--On 26. mars 2004 10:46 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald,
As you know, I favor moving in this general direction. Three comments on
specifics:
--On 26. mars 2004 21:59 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do worry about the "harm to the Internet" case (e.g., a protocol which
will be used to transport large amounts of data but does not have any
congestion control ability) but I'm satisfied with the process described
in this
Kurt,
--On 26. mars 2004 18:14 -0800 "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 05:35 PM 3/26/2004, Eliot Lear wrote:
Personally, I'm more concerned by WGs demanding their right to
have their half-baked specifications published as RFCs, and the
for IESG to approve them without any IETF revi
--On 28. mars 2004 01:35 +0800 James Seng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Few questions:
Thanks, James!
1. Section 4 say that "For documents that are independent of the IETF
process: This document is not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard."
Does this means that an individual submission ca
--On 27. mars 2004 13:12 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note: The changed IESG review of RFC Editor documents does NOT change
the IESG review for individual submissions to the standards track or
individual submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical
review, as
--On 28. mars 2004 05:03 + Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and at least some opinion that publishing it was better for the Internet
than not publishing it - certainly, for every standards-track RFC, there
was at one time a majority view in the IESG that such was the case.
well, no. the
--On 27. mars 2004 15:53 -0800 "Paul Hoffman / VPNC"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The material in draft-iesg-rfced-documents-00.txt can be greatly improved
with a few changes:
- Require that all documents published without IESG technical review say
so explicitly in a standardized boilerplate: "Th
--On 30. mars 2004 09:51 -0800 "Paul Hoffman / VPNC"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Requirement on the RFC Editor - doesn't sound unreasonable, but out
of scope for this document.
Not really. Currently, when the IESG reviews non-standards-track
documents, it makes a decision (or approves a request)
Pekka,
I-D announcements for WG documents are SUPPOSED to be CCed to the WGs.
Please report this as a bug (after checking that the announcement is not
caught in an antispam filter)
Harald
--On 2. april 2004 17:06 +0300 Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 25
The following draft is in large measure based on reading the discussions on
the IESG list.
Two important notes:
1) It is not *possible* to write a document that everyone agrees with. This
draft is based on a considered judgment of what's best for the IETF, after
reading and thinking about all
--On 11. mai 2004 17:10 -0400 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.
Some of Dean's mail servers are listed on SORBS. ISC's MXes use SORBS.
Perhaps we shou
Dean,
third time same complaint, third time same answer.
No.
A WG chair is expected to read mail coming from the working group list.
What he does with copies that go directly to him is his own business.
And as I have told you on the previous two instances of this complaint:
Personal mail to y
--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting
from 2026):
"the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context"
this path has be
--On 11. mai 2004 08:46 -0400 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- The work can be done in the IETF, and the author agrees. The author
should (IMHO) be the one to inform the RFC Editor that he/she is
dropping the request to publish outside IETF review.
but that seems to drop a ball - the
I have tried to incorporate the extremely useful feedback I got on this
list and from the Korea plenary.
I hope this is ready to send to IETF-wide Last Call.
This is your chance to get at it early :-)
Take care,
Harald
-- Forwarded Message --
Date: 30. april 2004
--On 3. mai 2004 12:13 -0400 Susan Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing like jumping in late and editing the first sentence, but here
goes:
The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.
This is phrased a bit awkwardly, and implies that the Internet isn't
working all that well no
Mr. Anderson,
I note that your use of the terms "infantile", "irresponsible" and
"immature" are personal attacks. These are inappropriate for the IETF list.
If you have serious complaints to make that you feel require you to use
these terms, send them to me privately.
If you want to send mail t
After re-checking with legal counsel, I repeat what I said before, trying
to be as clear as possible:
Bouncing a message to the sender is NOT public defamation.
Therefore, your complaint about "defamation" has no merit.
Dean, I believe that:
- your complaint about the apparently incorrect owner
thanks for your comments, Pekka!
wrt review subjects - we went a few rounds on this, and the current list is
probably a reasonable compromise between "no list" and "exhaustive list" -
it's short enough to make people notice that "such as" probably covers a
lot of stuff not mentioned. Good that y
--On 20. mai 2004 17:35 -0700 Fred Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE I
--On 21. mai 2004 10:31 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But I have
seen worse. The LA IETF was >200$ per night. The 'throw-a-fit' bit
probably limits the choices a bit too. I remember working on the
Stockholm IETF. We (the local staff) were politely asked but the
staff of t
--On 21. mai 2004 13:24 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've already raised this some time ago, same as other people did, but I
still see my name being published, w/o my consent, in the list of
attendees.
This is not acceptable, we should have the option to choose if we
This is what I asked to have done at the conclusion of our last debate on
the issue. It seems to not have been carried forward into the IETF 60
webform.
Harald
-- Forwarded Message --
Date: 28. januar 2004 17:30 -0800
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EM
--On 21. mai 2004 11:30 -0700 Fred Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still a bit puzzled by what "Disclaimer of Validity" could mean,
.e.g., could it mean that everything that appears in the document
before it is "invalid"? Would appreciate clarification on this.
I think it means that "ISOC a
--On 22. mai 2004 10:31 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Spencer,
I may be just misunderstanding your sense of humor, but it seems to me
that any sort of formal experimental process is too heavyweight for this,
or at least the core issue. It seems to me that what we have is...
Paul,
I'll ask - but Brett Thorson was the person that was gathering the info,
and he has just left CNRI. So I don't know whether the information has been
preserved.
Harald
--On 28. mai 2004 09:00 -0700 "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Greetings again. I
A reminder to the people actively posting on the "spoofing email addresses"
thread:
RFC 3005 says the following (emphasis mine):
This list is meant for INITIAL discussion only. Discussions that
fall within the area of any working group or well established list
should be moved to such more
--On 5. juni 2004 16:13 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This means that you are proceeding with the changes.
No. It means that we need to make a plan for those changes.
You can't review what isn't there. My bad wording.
Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific plan
--On 9. juni 2004 10:00 -0400 David Lloyd-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On this planet things are almost always set up without plans, and plans
are almost always constructed ex post facto to justify whatever happened.
not my experience.
my favourite quote on planning is "the purpose of plannin
Sal,
the idea of setting up a server that everyone in the world would trust was
suggested in RFC 1422 (IPRA), in 1993.
It did not succeed terribly well then, and people have tended to look very
skeptically upon ideas that require some sort of "single root" since then.
What's your reason to belie
Seyed,
the next meeting of the IETF will be held in San Diego in the beginning of
August 2004. It is open to all who wish to attend and are able to make the
trip.
You are very welcome to attend; we do not call these meetings "summits" -
there are other meetings that call themselves "summits", b
--On 15. juni 2004 09:28 -0400 David Lloyd-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On 9. juni 2004 10:00 -0400 David Lloyd-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On this planet things are almost always set up without plans, and
plans
--On 16. juni 2004 18:03 -0400 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've noticed that Rob Austein continues to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for his work as
WG co-chair. I think I've been very patient, and have held off on legal
recourse so far.
Dean,
we have been very patient with you, but you are m
--On 12. juli 2004 12:55 -0400 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it has been pointed out to you that you have the ability to
communicate with Rob Austein using the mail address that is posted
on the ietf dnsop charter web page:
As Chairman Alvestrand has clearly stated, IETF email lis
Short answer:
No.
Long answer:
This item has been discussed to death once every 3 months on this very
list. We have never found a consensus to add these tags.
Harald
--On 15. juli 2004 10:35 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi.
Since I'm the apparent offender...
Th
--On 21. juli 2004 21:13 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 21-jul-04, at 6:20, Aaron Falk wrote:
In the interest of creating a more informed discussion,
we've put together a short questionnaire to gather some data on
attending meetings from IETF participants.
Ok, that's gr
Michel Py suggested it on June 14. I have not acted on the request.
--On 22. juli 2004 23:45 -0400 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have I been ejected from the IETF list?
Or is this just one of many false reports posted to Nanog?
___
Ietf maili
Florent,
as in many other things, the IETF doesn't have a history of complete
consistency.
in the case of an existing WG abandoning an I-D, I'm sure that the next
version of the I-D should be named draft-myfavouriteauthor-something (where
"something" can easily contain the WG name if so des
hm do you think Olaf Kolkman has misspelled his name, or what?
and draft-ietf-sip-manyfolks is *formally* correct.
draft-ymbk has tradition, but it's likely to be crushed under the wheel of
procedural correctness once the present batch is gone.
I don't know whether stopping "manyfolks" is rig
--On 31. juli 2004 11:19 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What about an information draft reporting on the results of the work of
an existing organization or project? Can it use the name of the
organization and only quote as authors the actual writers?
that would require gi
--On 22. juli 2004 10:55 -0700 Aaron Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
try the Perl package "Net::Country" (if installing it works for you).
--On 9. august 2004 21:48 -0700 Rajat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear All,
Actually I am intrested in finding the region of given
IP address.
For This I need to determine the IP ranges allotted to
country as well as the domain ex
The slides used in the plenary to present the administrative restructuring
at IETF 60 are available on http://www.iab.org/.
Harald
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi folks,
as we are nearing the time when we have a completed Administrative
Restructuring considerations document available to put before the IETF, we
have to make ready to manage the discussion to consensus.
We (IESG/IAB) have recommended using the IETF list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as the
veichle
It seems that the I-D publication process is faster than the process of
sending large messages to the IETF list.
Have a good read!
Harald
-- Forwarded Message --
Date: 26. august 2004 15:34 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I-D ACTI
Thanks for your comments, Jordi!
I'm replying to part of your note, and changing the subject line to get
different topics on different threads. I do think we need some kind of
IETF consensus on the criteria for venue selection - and once we have that
documented consensus, we need to evaluate
--On tirsdag, august 31, 2004 12:09:59 +0100 Tim Chown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So,
Are there any real Friday sessions at IETF 61, or not?
Someone tried to put v6ops on Friday am at IETF 60, before shifting
it out... it would be nice to either have IETF run out to 2-3pm and
have some real sess
Christian,
apologies for the slow response - my mailbox has been out of commission
since Monday (crashed disk and informal recovery procedures).
--On 30. august 2004 12:26 +0100 Christian de Larrinaga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Firstly congratulations to all those involved in compiling this wor
Hadmut,
you made a complaint about the SPF draft to the IESG just prior to the
March IETF meting in Korea.
I'd like to reproduce the answer I sent you at that time here:
Dear Hadmut:
Thank you for your inquiry. Obviously, there is nothing that the IETF
can do regarding the many activities that
--On torsdag, september 02, 2004 12:01:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Christian also implies the converse question: would scenarios C & D
reduce a hypothetical existing conflict of interest for the ISOC
trusteees? Again, I don't see why. Firstly, I don't think there is
an
--On torsdag, september 02, 2004 09:18:13 +0100 Tim Chown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pretty full? There were two WG meetings and two BoFs... although
(for the first time?) there was an afternoon session (with 1 WG!).
hm. You're right (with corrections as noted).
btw - the afternoon session was
--On torsdag, september 02, 2004 13:41:52 -0400 Dean Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
scenarios C and D envision incorporating the *support function* for the
IETF. The IETF would remain an undefined entity under these scenarios.
I&
Thanks for asking questions that I can answer, Dean!
--On lørdag, september 04, 2004 04:16:11 -0400 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I think the IETF also has paid employees. Aren't these people paid by
> the ISOC
--On lørdag, september 04, 2004 04:16:11 -0400 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So it would appear that the ISOC supervises what goes on.
ISOC does have a role in the process. "Supervise" is not a word I would use
to describe it.
I note that both RFC 2031 and Vint Cerf's History indica
Following up on Leslie's mail of Friday, and a number of posters (Brian,
Scott, Margaret) who have said something on the order of "I think I prefer
A or B, but I don't understand the difference". my particular
perspective. in order to avoid misunderstandings, I'll define a few
terms fir
Thanks, John!
--On 6. september 2004 12:08 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I am left close to the question that prompted your response,
with little additional information from that response. I can't
parse the difference between "scenario A with MOU and maybe some
other things to
Greetings,
on August 16, I sent out a call for volunteers for sergeants-at-arms for
the IETF mailing list.
I got a number of qualified volunteers (thank you all!), and from the
volunteers I have picked two:
- Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Jordi Palet Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(The fact
--On tirsdag, september 07, 2004 14:31:50 -0700 Thomas Gal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think a doc like this should certainly be prominently featured
somewhere, maybe even under the title, on our webpage. Whatever way
anyone could come up with to get someone to read background on the org
before
--On tirsdag, september 07, 2004 20:10:54 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
leslie sez:
In my reading of Scenarios A & B, the suggestion
is that ISOC takes on the administrative work more-or-less
directly.
takes on" the admin work or "contracts vendors" to do the admin work
takes o
--On onsdag, september 08, 2004 07:23:10 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John sez:
But, as far as I can tell, the "separate organization" model
bets the entire survival of the IETF against a "nothing will go
wrong" assumption.
so far the people who are pushing for the "separate or
--On onsdag, september 08, 2004 08:55:26 -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And that's exactly why the liability insurance policy held by
ISOC
covers IETF "officials" today.
Would someone who actually knows or can find out care to comment
on whether the insurance would cover such "o
I thought it would make sense for me to mention a few things I have
regarded as "obvious" in this discussion - just to make sure nobody comes
along later and says "you can't draw a conclusion based on that - while I
agree with you, there might be others who don't" or something like that.
Clarity
Luis,
the IRC protocol is not an IETF effort - it has been published as RFC, but
is being maintained by the IRC community, not by the IETF.
I would recommend contacting Christophe Kalt, author of RFC 2810 and
friends (the latest IRC specification), and ask for an appropriate venue.
Now that we have had a long and informed debate about the question of
organizational form of the IETF administrative support structure, I feel
that I know a lot more about what can achieve IETF consensus on the
subject
However, that's not the only thing in the consultant report. I wonder if
In the report, Scenario C has clearly identified the need for a "board of
directors" as oversight function for the administrative entity.
Margaret has also pointed out the need for such a function in scenarios A
and B - and multiple people have made the point that this is NOT a job that
the sel
This has been a rathole every time we've tried to discuss the issues on the
IETF list among other things because nobody's written a draft that
tries to cover the issues... at least we need to cover:
- whether all people at all times have committed to letting the IETF
publish their drafts in
Since this address is sending multiple autoresponses to the list itself
(rather than to the sender), please remove it.
Harald A
-- Forwarded Message --
Date: 10. september 2004 16:04 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Autoreply:
--On lørdag, september 11, 2004 17:06:53 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo path)
and try to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for
what Carl called the clerk function and maybe some other functions
(imo it woul
--On 12. september 2004 12:19 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
To further complicate things, I personally don't think the IETF
has yet figured out enough about what it really wants from the
secretariat part of the function and reached enough consensus on
that to justify any RFP-wr
--On 12. september 2004 12:19 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
To further complicate things, I personally don't think the IETF
has yet figured out enough about what it really wants from the
secretariat part of the function and reached enough consensus on
that to justify any RFP-wr
--On søndag, september 12, 2004 21:36:42 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HTA> I suspect that the only way we can figure out if anyone can figure
out what HTA> we want done from the descriptions we give is to ask them -
we don't have HTA> any experience figuring out what the process
--On tirsdag, september 14, 2004 22:39:25 -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In more practical terms, while I agree that the people who do
the technical work are a necessary condition for the IETF being
meaningful, we certainly have people around who participate in
the IETF, are eli
Brian,
your timeline looks very deliberate and formally correct.
However, I worry about the ability of the IETF to work constructively while
knowing that its future is still in flux for that long.
So I put some dates in.
--On onsdag, september 15, 2004 11:18:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PR
--On tirsdag, september 14, 2004 16:14:42 +0300 "Soininen Jonne
(Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello everybody,
I think before proceeding with hiring a person we should have a bit more
discussion on the responsibilities and tasks for the admin director. I
think Carl's proposal
cific proposal
for further community review/advice, and that the final proposal should
be subject to community consent through the usual IETF Last Call and IESG
review/approval mechanism.
Am I understanding your question correctly? If so, then yes, I do agree
with it.
...but I don't consid
--On 16. september 2004 14:32 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
... The IAB
(and its Chair) are in considerably better shape on this than
the IESG (and the IETF Chair), since the IAB has not direct
standards-setting responsibility. But the turf is pretty
dangerous and, ultimat
--On 20. september 2004 14:03 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think the real point is that it's quite unrealistic at this
stage in the history of NAT to imagine that we can make the mess
(which was inevitable anyway) any better by codifying the
least-bad form of NAT behaviou
--On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald> And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF
Harald> recommendations for NAT devices make manufacturers who
Harald> listen to them create NAT devices that make their cust
Brian,
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
Also, I was surprised to find that of the two timelines in the writeups,
the one for Scenario C was the shorter one. (That may reflect the writers'
degree of optimism, however!)
S
--On tirsdag, september 21, 2004 13:55:10 +0300 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Removed Cc: iesg)
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harald> And - here
Scott,
some meta-thoughts.
--On 21. september 2004 20:33 -0400 scott bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Scenario C document says that there are 3 prerequisites required
before the option of a corporation can be "considered viable at all"
1/ IETF consensus on the plan
2/ ISOC
--On 21. september 2004 08:32 -0700 Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Well at the functional level I agree, but at the legal/poli
1 - 100 of 871 matches
Mail list logo
