Re: survey on Friday IETF sessions

Simon Leinen wrote: this error could be due to the fact that I did not attend Seoul but did attned MPLS and will attend SD. [...] maybe not - I also got such an error, although I did attend both IETF58 and 59. Looks like a file permission problem. It was a file permission problem, caused b

Re: Friday @ IETF61?

On Thursday, 2 Sep 2004, George Michaelson wrote: > I call again for meetings run over the weekend. midweek to midweek. There's been a number of comments for and against this proposal. To get some numbers on this, it would be good if those for which it matters whether the meetings run Sunday-F

POLL: IETFs Sunday-Friday or Thursday-Tuesday

On Thursday, 2 Sep 2004, George Michaelson wrote: > I call again for meetings run over the weekend. midweek to midweek. There's been a number of comments for and against this proposal. To get some numbers on this, it would be good if those for which it matters whether the meetings run Sunday-F

Software tools for IETF -- suggestions?

. Subscription instructions: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss The members of the tools team are: * Alex Rousskov * Bill Fenner * Larry Masinter * Stanislav Shalunov * Henrik Levkowetz (chair) Schedule: The group will initially focus on additional tools

I-D submission tool draft

Hi, The tools team has been working on requirements for a tool to automate submissions of internet-drafts, to replace the current mail submission through the secretariat as primary submission mode. We've put together a -00 version of a draft containing the requirements, and would very much like you

Re: [Tools-discuss] I-D submission tool draft

I forgot to say: Discussion of the draft should happen on the tools-discuss list, to keep the noise level down - subscribe at the following URL: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss Henrik Henrik Levkowetz wrote: Hi, The tools team has been working on requirements for a

Re: I-D submission tool draft

Thanks for the comments, Scott. I'm replying in a separate mail, to you and to the tools-discuss mailing list. Henrik scott bradner wrote: this looks pretty good but a few comments this seems to have taken the approach of taking a fully formed ID text and trying to parse and check it, no

Re: I-D submission tool draft

Hi James, On Monday, 13 Sep 2004, James Kempf wrote: > There seems to be a built-in assumption here that someone will write a new > tool for this. > > Most conferences and journals nowadays use an automated submission system, > I've heard there are 4 different systems used by various conferences.

Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps)

On Friday, 17 Sep 2004, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > AFAIK the US require taking fingerprints even from europeans > starting at Oct 1. So IETF60 was the last IETF I could attend > without having my fingerprints taken. I feel everything but > comfortable with that way to treat people. I agree. I since

Re: Poll: Restructuring questions

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: [snip] There's a poll up at that gives you a chance to say that you're listening - and IF you have an opinion on the current alternative scenarios, to state it. [snip] To those who have answered the poll, bu

Submitted comments from the poll about restructuring options

Hi, Below you'll find all comments received to the poll about restructuring options. To make sense of the comments, each comment is prefaced with the pollee's response to the preference question, if any. If you would like this presented in a different manner, let me know. Henrik --

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

Hi John, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snipped some text] I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the actual document. This can be done as

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

Hi John, John C Klensin wrote: Henrik, I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it illustrates the problem. See below. Yes, I thought you were - and I agree - continued below. --On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... I don

Re: Adminrest: created IPR

on 2004-12-02 9:58 am Brian E Carpenter said the following: > Scott Bradner wrote: >> the new draft asks: >> Do we need wording about the ownership of IETF tools and data? We >> have some text (in Section 2.2) about IPR, but does that fully >> cover tools and data? >> >> fwiw -

Re: Adminrest: created IPR

on 2004-12-03 9:25 am Harald Tveit Alvestrand said the following: > > --On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 18:02:16 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure if the current text clearly implies that tools created >> for the IASA by a

Re: Adminrest: created IPR

on 2004-12-03 3:30 pm Wijnen, Bert (Bert) said the following: > Inline, personal opinion > ... >> --On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> > What about this text, (added to 2.2.6): >

Re: Adminrest: created IPR

y to make the laundry list > in this document. > > Leslie. > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >> >> >> --On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> What about t

Re: Adminrest: created IPR

IETF undefined; a case which is different from services bought by the IETF, provided by independently developed tools - the case you illustrate in your example. It is this distinct case I would prefer to have covered, in addition to the case for the data (on which I agree). Henrik >

Re: Consensus? IPR rights and all that

on 2004-12-06 10:29 am Harald Tveit Alvestrand said the following: ... > Replace the current section from 2.2 that says: > >6. The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any >IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in >any way by ISOC fro

Re: Consensus(2)? IPR rights and all that

on 2004-12-06 10:36 pm Harald Tveit Alvestrand said the following: > After a brief trip to the lawyer, and considering current discussion... a > new suggestion: > > Replace principle 6 with the following: > >6. The IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual >right to use, displa

Re: Issue #755: Section 5.6 - Building a surplus [was RE: Building a surplus]

on 2004-12-23 9:02 pm Fred Baker said the following: > At 04:56 PM 12/23/04 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: >>Maybe we should merge the 2 issues into one? > > sure I've merged issue #755 with issue #740 in the issue tracker. Henrik ___ Ietf

Re: MARID back from the grave?

on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following: [...] > Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for the > life of the document, and that is the practice we have been following in > the Kerberos WG since its creation (well before I became chair). We have >

Re: WG+BOF chatrooms

on 2005-03-03 11:03 pm Ted Faber said the following: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:44:23PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Instructions are here: >> >> http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html > > Boy it would be great if there was a link to this from the IETF agenda > page. Is there an easy way to

Re: Meeting models (was: Re: Unhosted IETF meetings)

on 2005-03-21 2:15 pm John C Klensin said the following: > Two observations, merely historical, rather than suggestions for > the present or future... > [...] >> And, having said this ... one significant difference between >> the IETF model and the IEEE model (as of two years ago, I >> haven't bee

Re: An interesting sub-note for all of you using the xml tool for drafts

Hi Frank, On 2005-06-09 20:29 Frank Ellermann said the following: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> See http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/idnits.pyht > > I never got the idnits webservice version to do anything else > but show its 'usage' info. No idea what's wrong, maybe it's > only my brow

Re: Front-end delays

Hi Henning and Lucy, First thanks, Lucy, for the ack on the wg tools :-) More inline: On 2005-06-15 11:05 Henning Schulzrinne said the following: > Lucy E. Lynch wrote: >> Excuse top posting, please. >> >> Many of the issues related to WG progress can be managed using the >> excellent web to

Re: Front-end delays

On 2005-06-15 21:02 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following: > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2005 08:06:08 PM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> True on both counts. I have code in place to track WG last calls, but >> haven't had resources t

Re: put http://tools.ietf.org/ on the IETF website

on 2005-06-15 22:31 Bruce Lilly said the following: >> Date: 2005-06-15 15:06 >> From: wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > Note that "tools.ietf.org" is: >> > >> > [dns info about tools.ietf.org deleted] >> >> I'm sorry, but I do

Re: Front-end delays

on 2005-06-16 01:53 Henning Schulzrinne said the following: > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> Sounds like a good idea. However it requires direct integration with the >> tracker, which means that the tools team can't just put up a prototype, > > Not really - one could

Re: IANA Considerations

Commenting only on the idnits specific issue here: On 2005-07-07 22:08 Bruce Lilly said the following: > On Thu July 7 2005 15:32, Ned Freed wrote: [...] >> > Which would presumably mean that the idnits >> > check against that requirement would be dropped, >> >> On the contrary, it is important

Re: calendar file for IETF

On 2005-07-22 18:51 Cyrus Daboo said the following: [...] > BTW I think it might be worthwhile for the folks working on tools for IETF > processes to look into having an automatic iCalendar generator for IETF > agendas as a lot of people now have iCal capable clients that they could > use to dis

Re: Completely out of scope: Restaurant reccomendation

Sounds like something the Tools Team could provide. Should I set up one? Henrik On 2005-08-02 11:13 Clint Chaplin said the following: > So, who is going to volunteer to set up said wiki? I'm not > technically proficient > > On 8/2/05, Olaf M. Kolkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>

Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)

on 2005-08-04 10:05 Henning Schulzrinne said the following: > I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would > suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals: ... > - Have tools that remind the working group of upcoming deadlines, > i.e., drafts that are

Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)

on 2005-08-04 14:59 Henning Schulzrinne said the following: >> the I-D tracker, although it's not immediately obvious to me exactly what >> kind of integration with the I-D tracker would be beneficial here. Could >> you expand on this? > > Not much linkage: any I-D automatically has an issue trac

IETF Meeting Wiki (Was: Re: Completely out of scope: Restaurant reccomendation)

19:44 Henrik Levkowetz said the following: > Sounds like something the Tools Team could provide. Should I set up > one? > > Henrik > > On 2005-08-02 11:13 Clint Chaplin said the following: >> So, who is going to volunteer to set up said wiki? I'm not >> tec

Re: is the WG-Charter concept changed?

On 2005-08-20 10:10 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin said the following: > At 16:13 19/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt >>> >>> >>>The Draft above seems already to be used in some areas to rule

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) ' to Proposed Standard

on 2005-08-31 05:40 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 15:55:56 -0700 Ned Freed > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> IMO this needs major work even before being approved as experimental. The >> overlapped namespace approach in particular seems hugely problematic a

Re: tools.ietf.org is not working ?

on 2005-09-06 04:34 Soohong Daniel Park said the following: > tools.ietf.org does not work in my side for a long time...any reason ? One of the two tools.ietf.org servers was down for installation of larger disks for a couple of hours Saturday and Sunday around UTC each time. Apart from that

Re: Fw: IETF Tools

on 2005-09-14 22:20 Thomas Narten said the following: > As Spencer says, if you haven't looked recently, you really should. > > Let me just give a big Thanks to Henrik and the tools team for the > work that has gone into tools.ietf.org. It is an incredibly useful > resource. > > That is the fir

Re: Fw: IETF Tools

Hi Lakshminath, on 2005-09-14 22:48 Lakshminath Dondeti said the following: > This is a great tool and I am (was) thinking that this would help identify > contributions to WG1 that may be related to WG2 by listing both the names > in the title. > > For instance, the MSEC WG has some IPSEC relat

Re: Fw: IETF Tools

Hi Frank, on 2005-09-15 01:08 Frank Ellermann said the following: > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> suggestions and contributions are very welcome > > Minor nit, the output is still "transitional" using , > table layout, etc. That's fine from my POV with a

Re: Fw: IETF Tools

Hi Pekka, on 2005-09-15 07:00 Pekka Savola said the following: [...] > A suggestion: it might be a good idea to include a changelog of > user-visible changes somewhere. That way, the folks might discover > the fancy new features more easily.. Yes - it's only a few days away... The gray versi

Re: Fw: IETF Tools

on 2005-09-15 05:29 Frank Ellermann said the following: > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >> verify that I got it right > > Of course you did, but my stupid browser still doesn't get it, > sigh... embarassing, let's say "IOU ten legacy browser tests" >

Re: Last call tools

Hi Sam, I have a design for an issue tracker adapted for IETF use lying around, but haven't had time to implement it yet. I think it may match the requirements you place on a solution in your note below. The idea is based on my experience when doing issue tracking for the IASA BCP during Dec

Re: 64th IETF Agenda

Hi Andy, on 2005-10-30 15:29 Andrew G. Malis said the following: > Previous IETFs, up to IETF 63, had both HTML and text versions of the > agenda online, and using the HTML version, one could just click on > links to get both the WG charter and the WG meeting agenda. This > meeting, you need t

Re: 64th IETF Agenda

on 2005-10-30 21:23 Andrew G. Malis said the following: > Henrik, > > Thanks! This should probably have been better publicized if you're > not on the tools list. Yes, I guess so. Well, now it should be better known to people on this list, thanks to you bringing the issue up :-) > I sent my

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Hi Bert, on 2005-11-15 17:55 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) said the following: > smb writes: >> CVS? Should the Secretariat make CVS archives available to WG >> document editors? I've written a book and many joint papers via CVS; >> it works very well for line-oriented ASCII input, whether XML, LaTeX,

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

on 2005-11-15 23:53 Spencer Dawkins said the following: > I can't believe we finally asked for something that the tools team had NOT > already thought about :-) Oh, there are many features on the current tools.ietf.org pages which are there because someone had a bright idea and asked for it. N

Printing IDs and RFCs (Was: Re: ASCII art)

Hi Yaakov, on 2005-11-23 07:30 Yaakov Stein said the following: > The fact that file formats may become obsolete > and unreadable 20 years later is a crucially important > for IETF continuity. > > I remember seeing a cartoon a few years ago > showing an email from Gates to Judge Jackson > stating

Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

on 2005-11-23 19:50 Dave Crocker said the following: > >> Summary of suggestions: > > > This looks like quite a good list. The only thing I would add is an > interactive submission tool that validates the xml2rfc document being > submitted. The tool has been specified (draft-ietf-tools-dra

Re: Printing IDs and RFCs (Was: Re: ASCII art)

Hi Yaakov, on 2005-11-29 16:17 Yaakov Stein said the following: > Henrik > >> Anyway, I've added text-to-pdf conversion for all RFCs and IDs under > the URL http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/, >> so you can get pdf- conversions of our various documents. > > > >> Comments welcome. > > Well, I have o

Re: Printing IDs and RFCs (Was: Re: ASCII art)

Hi Geoff, on 2005-11-29 20:38 Geoff Huston said the following: > At 02:17 AM 30/11/2005, Yaakov Stein wrote: [...] >>It would be great if I could write >>http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pwe3-satop > > true. > > You mean something like http://draft-ietf-pwe3-satop.potaroo.net? > > Or maybe

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

Hi Tim, on 2005-12-02 02:44 Tim Bray said the following: [snip] > I will now shut up. It is clearly the case that there is tremendous > resistance within the IETF to leaving their comfy ASCII enclave. Following the debate from the sideline till now, it's clear to me that there are at least a f

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

Hi Yaakov, on 2005-12-04 08:17 Yaakov Stein said the following: > > Why should any electronic format be normative? > > The normative version should be the hardcopy print-out, > and any editing tool that can produce a precisely reproducible print-out > > should be allowed. > > This should hold

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

on 2005-12-04 08:52 Doug Ewell said the following: > Perhaps it's just me, but I find it bizarre that the question of > limiting RFC text to ASCII vs. UTF-8 is being conflated with the > question of limiting RFC illustrations to "ASCII art" vs. other graphic > formats. I don't think the two h

Re: Alternative formats for IDs

;t feel particularly meaningful. [snip] >Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider > declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number >of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list. In that regard, >Henrik Levko

Re: Alternative formats for IDs

on 2006-01-11 22:02 Bob Braden said the following: > *> From: "Brian Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *> To: "'Paul Hoffman'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > *> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:13:35 -0500 > > > > *> The RFC editor has some problems which have not, to my knowledge, > *> been enume

Re: Alternative formats for IDs

on 2006-01-11 23:00 Ned Freed said the following: >> *> From: "Brian Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> *> To: "'Paul Hoffman'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> *> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:13:35 -0500 > > > >> *> The RFC editor has some problems which have not, to my >> knowledge, >> *>

Re: Alternative formats for IDs

On 2006-01-12 14:50 Bill Fenner said the following: Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I worked with Charles and Marshall directly instead of going through the list; perhaps this was a mistake. The comments from the RFC Editor can be found at http://rtg.ietf.org/

Re: experiments in the ietf week

Hi Iljitsch, On 2008-03-16 19:44 Iljitsch van Beijnum said the following: ... Nearly all IETF mailinglists are still hosted on IPv4-only > servers, to name just one issue. Umm... At this time, most IETF mailing lists are hosted on mail.ietf.org a.k.a. www.ietf.org, which is IPv6 enabled. (Th

Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

On 2008-03-28 18:49 Ray Pelletier said the following: > The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in > September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing software > done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that time thinking > of code contributed by IE

Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

Hi, On 2008-04-14 17:39 IESG Secretary said the following: > The following principles apply to spam control on IETF mailing lists: > > * IETF mailing lists MUST provide spam control. > * Such spam control SHOULD track accepted practices used on the Internet. > * IETF mailing lists MUST provide a

Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following: >> +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs >> that he comments on are algorithmically possible. > > These two MUSTs (the ability to whitelist specific posters without them having > to receive list mail and spam rejection) are both com

Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

On 2008-04-15 00:35 Ned Freed said the following: >> On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following: > I guess I should be flattered, but really, I fail to see why. Guaranteed > bypass > of moderation is simply an allowed-poster whitelist. So it seems to me that you've failed to see the prob

Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

On 2008-04-15 05:12 Ned Freed said the following: >> On 2008-04-15 00:35 Ned Freed said the following: On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following: > >>> I guess I should be flattered, but really, I fail to see why. Guaranteed >>> bypass >>> of moderation is simply an allowed-poster wh

Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

On 2008-04-15 16:59 James Galvin said the following: > > -- On Monday, April 14, 2008 10:25 PM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: IESG Statement on Spam > Control on IETF Mailing Lists -- > >>> * IETF mailing lists MUST prov

Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

Hi Cullen, On 2008-04-16 00:01 Cullen Jennings said the following: Hi Henrik, Seems this email about email still needs some more discussion - I have not been involved much with this much but I suspect that Chris Newman would probably be the best person on the IESG to work with on both cla

www3.tools.ietf.org very heavily loaded

Hi, www3.tools.ietf.org is currently very heavily loaded, and it's not possible to ssh in to it. I've removed the A and records for it from the zone file for tools.ietf.org, so any long delays you may have experienced reaching the wg status pages, RFCs and drafts on tools.ietf.org should be

Re: www3.tools.ietf.org very heavily loaded

Update: On 2008-07-23 14:56 Henrik Levkowetz said the following: www3.tools.ietf.org is currently very heavily loaded, and it's not possible to ssh in to it. I've removed the A and records for it from the zone file for tools.ietf.org, so any long delays you may have experience

Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

Hi John, On 2008-08-10 23:32 John C Klensin said the following: --On Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:14 AM -0700 Dave Crocker ... And note that the normative "should" language in the Checklist, here, might be considered stronger than what is actually said in the RFC Editor's policy document. (One

Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

Hi John, On 2008-08-11 01:46 John C Klensin said the following: --On Monday, August 11, 2008 12:54 AM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... If you're referring to idnits, it does no test the number of authors in any way or form. I haven't checked whether t

Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

Hi Dave, On 2008-08-11 16:35 Dave Crocker said the following: Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > My personal viewpoint is that it would be inappropriate to strictly enforce a limit of 5 authors. The use of 'should' in section 2.2, item 2 of the current document ('There should

Re: draft-rfc-image-files-00.txt

On 2008-08-23 02:05 John C Klensin said the following in reply to Bill McQuillan: Bill, Personal opinions only: I have not polled my esteemed co-author, nor the contributors from the Editorial Board, and we may not agree. My hope is that we can discuss and figure out whether the community l

Re: draft-rfc-image-files-00.txt

Hi John, On 2008-08-23 20:01 John C Klensin said the following: > > --On Saturday, 23 August, 2008 14:01 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Tools-wise I believe this proposal proposes no great >> challenges. >> There's however on

Re: Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

Hi, On 2008-09-09 01:28 Ray Pelletier said the following: > All > > The redline of the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents dated > 9-8-08 has been uploaded to http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html > in doc, pdf and rtf formats. To see what changes would be needed in 'id

Re: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem

One comment, below: On 2009-02-06 06:28 Ed Juskevicius said the following: > The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on some > proposed revisions to the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" > policy, based on comments received from the community in the last two > week

Re: 'monotonic increasing'

Hi Ken, on 2006-02-17 18:46 Ken Raeburn said the following: > On Feb 17, 2006, at 11:14, Tom.Petch wrote: >> Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it >> defined so that when applied to a sequence of numbers, then each >> number is not >> less than its predecessor, so that

Re: Announcement of IAB member selection

I applaud the NomCom in this very appropriate choice -- at this particular time, I don't think there is any better choice they could possibly have made for the vacant IAB seat. Bert has impressed me with his ability to always perceive where he is most needed, and appear there as if by magic to as

Re: Announcement of IAB member selection

Mark, on 2006-04-03 17:20 Mark Townsley said the following: > > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> I applaud the NomCom in this very appropriate choice -- at this particular >> time, I don't think there is any better choice they could possibly have >> made for the vacant IAB

Re: Unannounced list status changes considered harmful

Hi Frank, on 2006-04-15 13:44 Frank Ellermann said the following: >> shows >> that all was fine until Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:59:56 -0700. > > Update: > Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:00:00 +0200 - no "me

Re: draft on network-based mobility management

Hi, I've posted a response to this on the netlmm list, with cc: to the int-area list. Regards, Henrik on 2006-05-06 00:21 Soliman, Hesham said the following: > Folks, > > This is a draft on the netlmm efforts that have started recently. I > appreciate > any feedback on this. The

Re: draft on network-based mobility management

on 2006-05-07 01:28 Soliman, Hesham said the following: > I don't know what the appropriate list is for this discussion but > I'll include ietf@ietf.org in this response then I suggest we > move to int-area only to avoid duplicates. As I already indicated once before that I'd limit my reply to

Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in AdditiontoASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)

Hi, on 2006-06-15 19:30 Julian Reschke said the following: > Hallam-Baker, Phillip schrieb: >> ... >> A standards based, future proof, non proprietary solution to this problem > is to adopt: >> >> * Use of MHTML as the archive packaging. >> * Use of XHTML 1.0 as the document encoding. >> *

Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in Addition to ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)

Hi, on 2006-06-15 19:52 Joel M. Halpern said the following: > I would also observe that there is significant evidence that there is > not a real problem here. > > It seems to me that if there was a real problem with the graphics, > that folks would be publishing RFCs with PS or PDF forms, even

Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in Addition to ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)

Hi Julian, on 2006-06-15 21:42 Julian Reschke said the following: > Henrik Levkowetz schrieb: >> ... >> Agreed. Thinking some more about this, the lack of inter-document >> links seem to be a complaint that I hear much more often than the >> lack of good graphics s

Re: IETF66 - Recommendations for travel from airport to hotels?

on 2006-07-06 00:57 Elwyn Davies said the following: > Allegedly, if you have a booking in the IETF block, the Internet > connection is included for free. I've arrived and checked into the Delta. The internet for the IETF-block of rooms and dates is free, but this is not automatically the case

Re: jabber?

Hi, on 2006-07-09 12:52 Iljitsch van Beijnum said the following: > On http://www.ietf.org/meetings/text_conf.html it says that the > jabber group chats are at (for instance) > [EMAIL PROTECTED], but this doesn't work. When I go to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] it does seem to work, but I'm the only on

Re: Meetings in other regions

Hi Fred, on 2006-07-14 22:45 Fred Baker said the following: ... > Assumption: the "we" in question is folks who post internet drafts. > Attendance at an IETF meeting or being on the mailing list doesn't > qualify for consideration here. > > Criticism: there are SO many ways to approach that

Re: Meetings in other regions

on 2006-07-15 05:24 Fred Baker said the following: > Thanks. gee whiz, that was a bunch of work for me. You had a tool? > arg... > > :-) Well, in this case, I knew about a tool ;-) which was written by Jari Arkko, not by me. Best, Henrik > On Jul 14, 2006, at 1

Re: +1

Hi Michael, on 2006-07-15 07:13 Michael Thomas said the following: > Is it just in my part of the ietf woods, or is this becoming a widespread > phenomenon? If so, is this a good thing or a bad thing? > > On the one hand, it can be really difficult to get a feel for consensus on > a mailing list

Re: Meetings in other regions

rt of manually assembling the data from all active drafts. There's more about this on the referenced tool page. For the current discussion the figures should give a reasonable indication of geographic distribution, though. Henrik > swb > > On 07/15/2006 00:18 AM, Noel Chi

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi, on 2006-07-18 17:24 IETF Administrative Director said the following: > The IAOC intends to issue an RFP for the RFC Editor function no later than 31 > July 2006. To that end we seek your review and comments to the draft RFP. I just thought of and checked up one particular issue in the SOW in

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi Paul, on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following: > At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp >>is continued? > > Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but there is no RFC

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi Paul, on 2006-07-19 00:28 Paul Hoffman said the following: > At 12:14 AM +0200 7/19/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>\>> Should we >>>>barter away good current functionality because there's not an RFC for >>>>rsync? >>> >>> Nop

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi Bob, > *> > > *> >>And I'd be reasonably happy if we specified 'any version of rsync > greater > *> >>than X.Y.Z', or some such. The current debian stable version (2.6.4-6) > *> >>would work for me. > *> > > *> > Saying "rsync version 2.6 or later" works for me, as long as we >

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi Bill, on 2006-07-19 02:51 Bill Fenner said the following: >>A contractual requirement at this level of detail seems totally >>crazy. > > I'm afraid I agree. I see this in our other kinds of process > specifications too -- we write rules for which you need to exercise > sensible judgement, and

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi Paul, on 2006-07-19 00:02 Paul Hoffman said the following: ... >>on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following: ... >>> Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but there is no RFC (or even >>> Internet Draft) describing rsync. Of course, running an rsync server >>> is trivial and certainl

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi Bill on 2006-07-19 04:26 Bill Fenner said the following: >>Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require >>rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not >>specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.? I'd certainly be >>very unhappy completely ab

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

Hi Thomas, on 2006-07-19 14:33 Thomas Narten said the following: > IMO, the SOW should have some wording that requires/implies that > information available via web pages must also be provided in a > mirror-friendly way. The principle is that that the info can be easily > be replicated on mirror s

Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

Hi, on 2006-08-31 17:33 Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 said the following: > Brian, > > The advice you gave is exactly the opposite of that in RFC 3797, the > latest version of my non-binding guidelines for publicly verifiable > random selection. Note in particular that Section 5.1 of that RFC says >

  1   2   >