--On Friday, March 05, 2004 11:26 -0500 Stephen Kent
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thius is a note for all of the folks who flew on UA 893 on
> Friday, 2/27, with the unexpected 24 hour delay via Seattle.
>
> I just got off the phone with UA Customer Service (not Mileage
> Plus). They offered a
Vernon,
Much as I am reluctant to get into this debate, let me try to
make some distinctions that might be at the root of where you
and Nathaniel are not communicating...
* Your analogy to the phone system is exact as long as
the system is end-to-end (see below). You have no
--On Monday, 08 March, 2004 13:26 -0500 Keith Moore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's all well and good to try to retire Proposed Standard
documents that don't get implemented. But I think it's even
more important to make it easier for documents that do meet
the criteria to advance to Draft Stan
--On Friday, 12 March, 2004 20:19 -0500 Keith Moore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(2) When a document comes up for review for
Proposed->Draft, we look for implementations, etc.,
perhaps following Keith's proposal outline. If the
implementations are there, we issue a
Last week's version of the spam discussions, led to an
interesting (to me) side-discussion about what was, and was not,
an "Internet connection" service. There have been discussions
on and off for years (since before the User Services area was
inactivated) about doing such a set of definitions
--On Friday, 19 March, 2004 18:34 -0700 Vernon Schryver
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: John C Klensin
Last week's version of the spam discussions, led to an
interesting (to me) side-discussion about what was, and was
not, an "Internet connection" service. ...
dra
--On Tuesday, 23 March, 2004 08:48 -0700 Vernon Schryver
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps it would be enough to say just that, along the lines of
... mail directly from the IP addresses of customers of X
instead of via MTAs run by service providers is rejected by
much of the rest of th
Harald,
As you know, I favor moving in this general direction. Three
comments on specifics:
(1) The "standard IESG note" discussed in section 4 seems
tailored to documents that specify protocols or operational
procedures and, for that purpose, the notes suggested seem
plausible. However, a
Keith,
Pete has covered most of what I would have said, but I want to
address one other issue with your comments/ suggestions.
It seems to me that at least latent in your suggestions is the
assumption that the RFC Editor should publish only IETF
consensus documents or documents that are in gen
--On Wednesday, 21 April, 2004 15:46 +0100 Tim Chown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Is the IETF or ISOC going to take any stance against this
slippery slope?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/20/new.domains.ap/
Comment period closes April 30th.
Tim,
Addressing the IETF part of your qu
to refuse to say that (and counter to the intent of
2026)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue May 11 12:18:30 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-
-0500 Pete Resnick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/10/04 at 10:54 AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a
potential addition
o Documents for whi
Scott, Harald,
It seems to me that this problem/ disagreement could be easily
solved while preserving the (IMO, valid) points both of you are
making, by including a sentence somewhere to the effect of...
Of course, the IESG or individual ADs may have
discussions with the author
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a
potential addition
o Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB
documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of
documents from othe
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 10:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
note that I just used the words that were there - do you
suggest leaving teh words as they are? if not, maybe you can
suggest something better
I guess that, before, the text was sufficiently muddy that I
didn't
Hi.
While this discussion on the IETF list has been very
interesting, it is probably worth noting that the odds of ICANN
staff following the IETF list to the extent needed to pull out
this thread and make use of it are not high.
Instructions for making comments that they, and presumably the
e
Hi.
While this discussion on the IETF list has been very
interesting, it is probably worth noting that the odds of ICANN
staff following the IETF list to the extent needed to pull out
this thread and make use of it are not high.
Instructions for making comments that they, and presumably the
e
Friday, 30 April, 2004 18:36 +0200 jfcm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At 03:42 30/04/04, John C Klensin wrote:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/stld-public-comme
nts.htm
Dear John,
it seems that (one of the) most important entry (the letter
from ITU regarding the .tel
Jordi,
This has been discussed several times before. While I share
your discomfort, IETF is not some "conference" you might be
attending. It is very difficult to claim that one has an open
standards process when some participants are permitted attend
meetings and, potentially, influence decis
--On Friday, 21 May, 2004 15:55 +0100 Tim Chown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage
wrote:
This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is
required before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it
is acceptable for the IETF meeting
--On Friday, 21 May, 2004 15:55 +0100 Tim Chown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage
wrote:
This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is
required before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it
is acceptable for the IETF meeting
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...
* Jordi noticed a problem and pointed it out.
*
Dave,
Let me respond to this, not from Harald's perspective, but from
that as a semi-outside observer who is, I think, as concerned as
you are, about wasting time and resources on non-critical-path
efforts and about the IESG, IAB, or their respective Chairs
going off half-cocked.
First, while I
--On Sunday, 06 June, 2004 16:43 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> JCK> the outlines of this were
> JCK> presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus
> was that JCK> people should move ahead with this process,
>
> 1. Attendance by the on-going IETF pool of
Folks,
This confusion about what STDs mean and what they might do for
us finally convinced me to turn an idea that has been kicked
around a few times into an I-D. It is in the hands of the
posting queue and should, I assume, be announced today or
tomorrow. Watch for an announcement for
draft-kl
Folks,
This confusion about what STDs mean and what they might do for
us finally convinced me to turn an idea that has been kicked
around a few times into an I-D. It is in the hands of the
posting queue and should, I assume, be announced today or
tomorrow. Watch for an announcement for
draft-kl
r Street
> +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:15:53 -0400
>> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>&
r Street
> +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:15:53 -0400
>> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>&
Ohta-san,
I do not expect that we will agree on this, and may need to
simply agree to disagree, but, having just reviewed the draft
you included in your slightly earlier not, let me try to explain
the other point of view, and why the I-D to which Vernon refers
is written the way it is and, in the
--On Sunday, 20 June, 2004 12:45 +0200 Hadmut Danisch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:40:03PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> First, Hadmut, and others with his concerns in other
>> countries, probably need to approach the local regulator
--On Sunday, 20 June, 2004 12:45 +0200 Hadmut Danisch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:40:03PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> First, Hadmut, and others with his concerns in other
>> countries, probably need to approach the local regulator
--On Sunday, 20 June, 2004 19:37 +0200 Hadmut Danisch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:52:51AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>> Much as I understand the moral outrage that NATs cause in
>> some people's mind, NATs are still a reality AND they
>> (usually anyway) provide conne
--On Tuesday, 22 June, 2004 07:15 +0900 Masataka Ohta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeroen Massar
>
>> You are forgetting something very big here:
>> Only the smart internet users will find a way out.
>
> The argument that the smart users can use IP over HTTP makes
> John's classifications suc
For those who have been interested in this discussion, a new
version of the draft has been posted. It incorporates, to the
extent to which I could figure out how to do so, comments on the
list and some very specific suggestions from a few people (see
acknowledgements).
As the document indicates,
ednesday, 07 July, 2004 06:15 +0900 Masataka Ohta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin;
>
> You made, at least, two mistakes, minor and major ones.
>
> A minor mistake is that you think you can let people outside
> of IETF use your terminology, if you give loose e
--On Wednesday, 07 July, 2004 21:47 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 23:22 06/07/04, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Vendors who are going to do these things will -- based on the
>> fact that they are being done already -- do them, with or
>
Hi.
A question as to whether I'm the only one who is bothered by a
trend and, if not, if it is time for the community to give the
IESG and the RFC Editor some advice.
I note that my concern is _only_ about standards-track
documents: they are widely referenced and cited by title as well
as number,
--On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 12:13 -0700 Randy Presuhn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: Names of standards-track RFCs
> ...
>> Now a different viewpoint. When lo
--On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 18:06 -0700 Christian Huitema
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Or consider the RFC that describes Classical IP and ARP over
> Automatic Teller Machines...
What did you say an ARP was? Some sort of fuzzy alien, perhaps?
A digestive sound made after excessive SIPPI
Hi.
Since I'm the apparent offender...
Those little inserts are a function of list management software
(which software is chosen and how it is configured), and not the
actions of individual authors (despite the indication I manually
included in this posting). If a change in how the IETF list
wor
--On Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:55 AM -0700 Aaron Falk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, regarding the survey: there's only been 80 responses so
far. My take is that people don't care about the issue enough
to voice their opinion.
I can't guess at the percentages, but at least a few people (who
IMPORTANT! This message has been blind-carbon-copied to you.
Do not reply-to-all or forward it without the author's
permission.
An additional thought about Friday meetings that the survey
doesn't capture...
Whether the problem is "Friday" or "after four days", our
meetings are intense enough t
t my thoughts -- and I am still not recovered enough that I
am sure I'll believe them at the end of the week.
john
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: survey on Friday IETF sessions
...
An additiona
--On Friday, 13 August, 2004 11:33 -0400 "Eric A. Hall"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Suggestions about parameters has come up before (John Klensin
> suggested it to me a couple of months ago). Unfortunately,
> these kind of helper tags attempt to define content rules
> rather than transfer
--On Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 13:05 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> So - where is the *one true canonical* definition of an mbox
> that actually answers all these basic questions that an
> implementer *needs* to know the answer to?
Or, as an alternative, where is the set of required param
--On Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 15:09 -0400 "Eric A. Hall"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To be clear about this, I think there are three choices which
>> we might prefer in descending order:
>>
>> (1) There is a single canonical "wire" format in which
>> these things are transmitted.
>
>
--On Tuesday, 17 August, 2004 17:38 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
>>> Global parameters are useless if the parser is intelligent
>>> enough to figure out the message structure independently.
>>> Given that such intelligence is a prerequisite to having a
>>> half-baked
--On Wednesday, 18 August, 2004 10:03 -0700 Thomas Gal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually if you knew what it meant but weren't that familiar
> with the place of an RFC(someone who's read 2 specs or
> something) you would assume IMHO that an "Internet Standard"
> is NOT a "request for comment
Leslie and Harald,
I would like to make one suggestion about this process. For
suggestions about substance, I will, of course, wait for the
final -00 version of the draft. This note is deliberately
being sent before I have done so because I don't want my remarks
to be biased by how I feel ab
Harald,
While I think this analysis and the distinctions you draw are
reasonable, I think the presentation in the document about the
difference between "A" and "B" is deeply flawed in that it seems
to present two options, neither of which is acceptable. Your
note hints about intermediate options
Graham,
One comment... more, perhaps to come, or already covered by
others.
--On Monday, 06 September, 2004 12:31 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All,
>
> My two cents worth...
>
> 1. I'm inclined to prefer option A or B, on the grounds of
> keeping things simple ( BUT see point 4, below )
--On Monday, 06 September, 2004 19:57 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
&g
Ted,
Let me try to briefly start from your assumptions and explain
why one might reach the opposite conclusion. Before I go on,
I'm assuming that your conclusion really implies "organization
separate from ISOC" rather than "separate organization within
some ISOC framework". There are scenarios
--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 09:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carl Malamud wrote:
>>> like many things outside the core technical field, these
>>> things are hard, and harder than they look, and hard enough
>>> that you need a better lawyer. as long as IETF remain
--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 08:53 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for you analysis. It was something I felt lacking and
> has helping me in my wavering between the absorption into ISOC
> model and the independent corporate model.
>
> I look forward to your analysis
conditions, as in
> by-law changes and perhaps MOUs, that determine whether this
> is beneficial or destructive.
Indeed. But even "merger" can be pretty distracting and isn't
what I'm picturing either. So I should stop responding to this
thread and go back to constructing t
--On Friday, 10 September, 2004 08:49 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> imo we should start a search for a Administrative Director now
Good idea, except...
* We have only the vaguest of job descriptions
* We don't know who the individual would actuall
Folks,
I'm not sure whether this puts me in agreement with Paul
Hoffman's "re-flogging" comment or not, but The Report was
presented to the community as not interacting with the Standards
Process at all. Well, the issues about how to handle expired
I-Ds, whether or not they expire, etc., etc., ar
Harald,
Let me try a different answer from Scott's, with just about the
same conclusion.
At the risk of being too specific about this, the "meeting
planning" function(s) and the "[standards] secretariat" one(s)
have almost nothing to do with each other --other than, in our
case, some rather im
--On Sunday, 12 September, 2004 11:59 -0700 Carl Malamud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John -
>
>> At the risk of being too specific about this, the "meeting
>> planning" function(s) and the "[standards] secretariat" one(s)
>> have almost nothing to do with each other --other than, in our
>>
> course,
> the team that searches for and interviews the candidates has to
> start by writing a job description.
>
> Brian
>
> John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Friday, 10 September, 2004 08:49 -0400 scott bradner
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Monday, 13 September, 2004 16:50 -0700 April Marine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The person "we" hire will report to their boss at whatever
> company they work for. The company and "the ietf" will have
> some agreement regarding duties and what constitutes
> acceptable performance. I'm sur
In trying to parse both Carl's document and the general
situation in the last few weeks, I've found myself getting
increasingly dissatisfied with the document and the discussion,
mostly with regard to ways in which the document has
constrained the discussion and was, itself, constrained by RFC
3716
Harald,
Since I finally got around to posting my "what was that problem
anyway" note, it is probably time for me to come back and try to
question some of your assumptions, since I'm not sure I agree
completely with all of them. More important, the logic on which
your definitions are constructed a
--On Tuesday, 07 September, 2004 11:35 -0700 Aaron Falk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>> I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good
>> idea. I believe that plenary time is full enough without
>> crowding it more.
>
> What about
--On Wednesday, 15 September, 2004 06:59 -0700 Carl Malamud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John -
>
> Would it be fair to summarize your note by saying it is a
> lightweight scenario A? E.g., simply take one action: hire
> an administrative director for the IETF and have that person
> live at IS
--On Wednesday, 15 September, 2004 11:10 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> 3) What's an appropriate selection mechanism for that group?
>
> Firstly, I'd say that the IETF and IAB Chairs, and one other
> IESG
> and IAB member, should be included automatically. I also thi
--On Wednesday, 15 September, 2004 12:04 -0700 Carl Malamud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John -
>
> Let me try again. I wasn't trying for debating points.
>
> It seems to me that you said that my report covered a lot
> of ground that doesn't need to be covered. And, that the
> overall focus
--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing
>> for pleasant climate and good vacation spots. I come to the
>> IETF to get work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the
>> other participants h
--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 21:38 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do we really want customers of NAT devices to be happy?
>
> Given that I'm one of them, and will continue to be one until
> the IPv4 Internet fades to where I can ignore it yes.
Harald, let
Harald,
FWIW, with one qualification, I tend to agree with Brian. While
Scenario C seems to contain more detail and definition, a great
deal of it appears to be handwaving that tends to conceal more
complexity and more risk. I suspect that both schedules are too
optimistic (which one is "more" t
(time to change the subject line enough to do some
differentiation)
--On Tuesday, 21 September, 2004 20:33 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> re: 3/ Of course, there can be no assurance that a corporation
> will be tax exempt unless 1/ it already is, or 2/ the IRS
> rules that it is
--On Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 05:59 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> re: 3/ Of course, there can be no assurance that a
>> corporation will be tax exempt unless 1/ it already is, or 2/
>> the IRS rules that it is. Scenario O covers the 1st case
>> since the I
--On Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 05:59 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> re: 3/ Of course, there can be no assurance that a
>> corporation will be tax exempt unless 1/ it already is, or 2/
>> the IRS rules that it is. Scenario O covers the 1st case
>> since the I
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
> November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
> be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
> themselves a
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
> November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
> be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
> themselves a
Olaf,
I skimmed through your note and found myself nodding in
agreement, then reached one of your conclusions and discovered
that we didn't agree, after all, on one critical point.
Certainly we agree on the ability of the typical member of the
IETF community to contribute actively and usefully to
Harald,
When I try to invoke this URL, I get a very impressive display
that says
"Python 2.3.4: /usr/bin/python
Fri Sep 24 21:32:36 2004
A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the
sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in
the o
John, and others,
First, let me plead with all of you who would prefer to ignore
this --and I certainly understand the feeling-- do technical
work, and let others decide to _not_ do that. If implementation
of these changes begins, and then fails, it is, IMO, unlikely
that we will have a sufficien
--On Tuesday, 12 October, 2004 18:37 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> My focus is on knowing what the details of the jobs are that we
> want done. Referring to the interface(s) is a convenient
> technique for trying to surface those details.
>
> Currently we do not have the
--On Tuesday, 28 September, 2004 09:07 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --On 27. september 2004 15:39 -0700 Dave Crocker
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:30:50 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>> wrote:
>>> The poll about restructuring opti
--On Friday, 01 October, 2004 20:09 +0200 Eliot Lear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kai Henningsen wrote:
>> Only Harald disagrees with that, because that is certainly
>> not the question his poll asked - there was no "neither"
>> option.
>
> Nor need there be. If the leadership is down to the
Since the discussion about scenarios for structuring the
administrative arrangements seem to be settling down, it is
probably time to try raising some questions that might really
impact the problems that get solved.
The issues raised below interact directly with the problems of
getting better-qual
Eliot,
I'm obviously not being successful at explaining what I'm
concerned about it and my getting this deeply drawn into this
whole discussion violates a promise I made to myself some time
ago, which was to concentrate my IETF time on only those things
in which I had a strong technical interest a
--On Monday, 04 October, 2004 18:33 +0200 Eliot Lear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, Spencer. We *had* a king for a VERY long time, and
> it was Jon Postel as RFC Editor and IANA. And somehow we
> survived. While Jon was around somehow a vast plethora of
> standards got vetted, not the
--On Tuesday, 05 October, 2004 13:59 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> I would like to question some of your assumptions below.
>
> --On 3. oktober 2004 14:46 -0400 John C Klensin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> S
Dave,
We have a long history of looking at the same data and analysis
and reaching different conclusions and of looking at different
data and analysis and reaching similar conclusions. Since we
have both been critical of aspects of this process, let me agree
with you about part of it but suppl
--On Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:07 PM +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do think our thoughts run very much in parallel - I'll be
interested to hear more of why you think the "scenario O"
organizational format will make it hard to make those support
functions work.
Ag
--On Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:53 AM +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On onsdag, oktober 06, 2004 17:50:04 -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:07 PM +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Carl,
You know that this is going to take more than one employee (or
individual contractor) and that the difference is hair-splitting
for most reasons. I know that. The document if read carefully
is pretty clear about that.
But I keep seeing "one employee only" comments which lead me to
bel
Hi.
Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months
between meetings?
Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG agreed on an I-D
posting deadline about a week before IETF began, in the hope of
getting all submitted drafts posted before WGs needed them for
review and discussion. Prio
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John> "As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a
> John> filen
Henrik,
I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it
illustrates the problem. See below.
--On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion
>> of these proposals/plans with the co
--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 20:20 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If your "reduce the load enough that things can be
>> gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the
>> meetings" hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would
>> already have had a review --in
l and proactive tracking of
this sort of thing to the IESG's workload, but it seems obvious
(at least in retrospect) that it would be useful if it were done
by someone.
best,
john
--On Wednesday, 20 October, 2004 08:23 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
--On Thursday, 21 October, 2004 22:16 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm with ESR on this one. The W3C bit the bullet and built a
>> patent/IPR policy that has integrity and is based on the
>> notion that the Net works properly when important components
>> can be built
Margaret,
A comment on part of your note to Brian...
--On Saturday, 23 October, 2004 11:46 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Brian, I believe that you and John Klensin were both members
> of one such group -- the IAB Advisory Committee that did the
> initial AdminRest wo
--On Monday, 25 October, 2004 15:12 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vernon Schryver wrote:
>>> From: John C Klensin
> ...
>>> Private discussions
>>>> are sometimes a necessity, as is the ability
--On Friday, 05 November, 2004 18:15 -0500 Noel Chiappa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I too would like to congratulate you on your successes, and
> suggest you have the opportunity to be the last chair to
> preside over active work related to version 6 of the IP
> protocol suite. With the passage
Harald,
While I agree with most of your analysis, I think there is a
different view of address space exhaustion that might be more
helpful and that there are several things the IETF can do to
impede the spread of IPv6. The other side of the "why bother
deploying it" argument is "ok, we've decide
1 - 100 of 1948 matches
Mail list logo
