Dear Philip,
You referred to draft-hallambaker-xptr-00.txt and wrote:
The list of comments does not include my core objection made in the
'Domain Centric Administration' and XPTR drafts, that it is in fact
possible to create 'midpoint' wildcards of the form
'_prefix.*.example.com' by the
A minute ago I wrote:
I think that the DNSEXT working group is a better place to discuss
the proposal and I've CC-ed them on this note.
I used the wrong address in the CC line. Be aware of that if you want
to continue the discussion on DNSEXT: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the
proper address of t
While reviewing the documents I tried to determine how the 4 streams
currently defined in RFC4844 fit into the framework.
Although the stream is not specifically mentioned it is clear that the
incoming rights document applies to the IETF Stream.
To me it is clear that a contribution to t
documents streams by some kind of awkward
retro-fit.
Brian
On 2008-03-28 08:15, Leslie Daigle wrote:
--On March 27, 2008 10:33:24 AM +0100 Olaf Kolkman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would think that the document would gain in clarity if it
explicitly
ties the incoming rights to t
course.
--Olaf
-
Due to a mishap my right hand is in cast and I can only type short
messages using my left hand. Apologies for the snappy tone that may be
caused by that.
Olaf Kolkman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
"The RFC Series and RFC Editor" section 4.2.3.
To that extent section 4 of the draft should explicitly mention that
the irtf-, the independent- and any possible future streams are not
covered by the draft.
For the IAB,
Olaf Kolkman
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally sign
TU-T. Such issues
fall within the scope of the ongoing and successful cooperation
between the ITU-T and the IETF. Consequently, the IAB plans to send a
liaison letter to the ITU-T, and based on the response, the IAB will
suggest further steps for the ENUM WG in the IETF.
For the IAB,
--Ol
RFC interest list. To subscribe go
to http://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest.
The IAB will gauge consensus shortly after the IETF meeting in Dublin
(July 27 - August 1, 2008).
For the IAB,
--Olaf Kolkman
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:50 PM, David Kessens wrote:
Olaf,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:52:36AM -0700, IAB Chair wrote:
We would like to create such opportunity on Thursday but only if
interest
is demonstrated.
If you have a question for the IAB, please sent it to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
by 2p
On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Dan York wrote:
Being a remote participant (for the first time) at this IETF 72
meeting, I have to say that my main disappointment was that some or
all of the slides for the two plenary sessions were not available at
the time of the plenary.
In the Wednesday
Essentially, this note is another me too.
On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
(iv) If that note is acceptable to the authors/ editors/
WG/ etc., generation of a document that incorporates the
changes. That version is, or is not, posted at the
dis
On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:56 PM, SM wrote:
Hello,
A proposal was posted at
http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFC-Editor-Model.html about a
new structure for the RFC Editor. I read about the Internet
Standards Process and couldn't find the answer to a question.
Quoting Section 4.2.3 of RFC 26
On Oct 2, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
The RFC Editor continues to publish STD 1 online, updated daily.
And we recently published a "periodic" version as an RFC, over some
people's dead bodies, I might add.
I'm not sure wether you refer to:
http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/iabm
There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may
interest you.
For easy accessibility of those links see:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html
--Olaf
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Ietf mailing l
On Nov 27, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Matthew Ford wrote:
After all the years of FUD surrounding DNSSEC deployment, I feel
quite strongly that having the IETF do as you suggested and then be
able to point to 'no discernible impact' on the network would be a
significant milestone.
Data point: I
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:49 AM, The IAOC wrote:
> The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
> vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
> rules.
>
> Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and
> a member of the IAOC sinc
On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Fellow IETF'rs
> below is a recall petition that I plan on submitting soon if there is enough
> support.
>
> If you agree with this petition please either comment on this posting, or
> send me email of support noting if you are NomCom
On May 5, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> On 05/05/2013 01:37 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> On 2/05/2013 18:17, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> On May 2, 2013, at 07:21, "Eggert, Lars" wrote:
>>>
Yeah, all kinds of issues, but if we created a new thing here in
between WGLC and
>
> Folks,
>
> I am increasingly concerned about efficiency in the IETF, given the loads
> everyone is carrying. One source of inefficiency is having someone create
> work for others, without having already done enough of their own work.
> [...]
A few years ago I proposed http://tools.iet
[Replying to Mark, only because he inspired to make the remark]
On Apr 19, 2010, at 5:21 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Couldn't IANA just implement the "search format" as
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/Registry-Name
>
> and cut out the middle man?
>
> Regarding the "20 year" argument, it
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I
> asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North
> America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Asia in two year period (3-2-1) ) or changing to a
> 1-1-1 pol
On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm forwarding this message to the general IETF mailing list, because I
> think we need a good discussion on this and the confirmation from the
> secretariat/IAOC that this work will be done CORRECTLY NEXT TIME.
>
> The fact is
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>
>> Many countries we go to attend IETF meetings would probably require
>> "business"
>> visa but we go there as tourists on a visa waiver program.
>
> I don't quite understand this dis
The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think about weighing
the location preference by number of participants from certain regions.
Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her costs are that for
attending 6 IETFs she gets to travel 1x regional and 5x interregion
On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Eric,
>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
>
>> I would offer RFC 5211 is PRECISELY the kind of RFC the IETF should NOT be
>> publishing! I can see the press release now: "IETF publishes IPv6
>> transition plan." NO ONE OUTSIDE
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> sh don't say it out loud, the IGF may try to regulate the
> reproduction of pigeons ...
>
> BTW did each of the pigeons had a different class of service ? We need
Reminds me of an implementation report of RFC1149 Firewalling way back
In the context of a long thread about style and readability[*] Joel M. Halpern
summarized:
>
> I do want to re-iterate two points I have seen that are important. Both are
> relevant no matter what style of posting you like.
> 1) People need to read the whole email before composing their res
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> I personally find section 5.1 unusually amusing as if now the IAB wants to
> say split-DNS "should be considered harmful". Leakage in to the public DNS
> .. geez really. Like what where are the examples of the harm? So who put
> ringtones in
On Nov 8, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> It is also the price for maintaining quality and culture. -- D. Crocker
>
>
>
> One of the problems with having things work well is that we get complacent.
>
> Onc
On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 11/Jan/11 20:32, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:35 -0800 Randy Presuhn
>> wrote:
>>
At issue though is that these individuals get paid
(sponsored) by someone, either directly or indirectly by
c
I see an opportunity for the IETF Store[*]
A T-shirt with a blank space in which you can write your draft name... See
http://www.secret-wg.org/Poster-Session.png for the artist impression of the
random IETF participant wearing such shirt.
--Olaf
[*] http://www.cafepress.co.uk/ietf
smime.p7s
[More NOISE, skip reading if you want SIGNAL]
On Jan 24, 2011, at 5:36 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> Wasn't the official definition of the meter also tied to Paris?
>
> The invention of the meter is indeed tied to Paris. The value of the meter
> itself is not.
>
> The meter was defined by
Dear Colleagues,
I have just chartered a very short draft that intends to update BCP101. It can
be found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
The draft is very short and contains only a few sentences of substance:
The IETF chair, the IAB chair, and the ISO
Op 30 mrt. 2011 om 13:35 heeft "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" het
volgende geschreven:
> On 3/30/11 1:21 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I have just chartered a very short draft that intends to update BCP101. It
>> can be found at:
>> http:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:42 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Olaf,
> At 04:21 30-03-2011, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> I have just chartered a very short draft that intends to update BCP101. It
>> can be found at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
>
[as editor:]
It seems that the high order bit of this discussion circles around the question
on whether it a requirement for the IETF Chair to have a voting position in
order to effectively perform oversight. Once we figured out where we want to go
with that we can think about delegation by th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-04-14 06:19, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Olaf,
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>
>>> [as editor:]
>>>
>>> It se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
> Certainly the IASA/IAD/IAOC reorganisation produced a noticeable
> reduction in the IETF Chair workload, but what has changed since
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks-00 ?
> It would be good to have a similar analysis fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:19 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>
> Speaking as an individual, but an individual who helped set up this structure
> and who sat in the non-delegated ex officio IAB Chair position on the IAOC
> (and IETF Trust) for a couple of yea
On Jul 14, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> It's excellent that the issue was covered in the RFC.
>
> My question is how the contents of that RFC can be binding on random IETF
> participants?
At the risk of answering a rhetorical question: It's being referred to in the
NOTE WELL.
All
Dear Colleagues,
Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to
1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective bodies.
2) allow the chairs to par
Brian,
So far you are the only person that has responded with substance. Other
feedback was promised but never arrived. I hope to rev this document shortly so
that we can finalize it before the Taiwan meeting.
I wrote:
>> Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
>> http://tools.ietf.or
Thanks Bob,
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter!
>
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
>>
>> Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to
>> 1) replace the 'chairs'
On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> - Olaf's wording be changed to make the IAB Chair, IETF Chair and ISOC CEO
> into ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons to the IAOC and the Trust.
>
> - The TAP then be modified to recognize the status of these new ex-officio
> and non-vo
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to
> figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting
> involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an
> Arch
On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>
>> It is important for the I* chairs to be connected with the community.
>> It is important for the IAOC to be connected with the community.
>> It is important for the I* chairs to be informed about what is happening in
>> the IAOC
>> It is impo
On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I theory I can agree, but in practice I think the more separation there is
> the more likelihood for organizational problems. The point I am trying to
> make is that there needs to be close coordination between the IESG/IAB/ISOC
> and having a
Folk,
My friend Miek Gieben just demonstrated the use of Pandoc that in combination
with Make and XSLT scripting to can produce internet-drafts in XML format from
plain text input.
The plain text only needs a few formatting conventions, more or less like wiki
markup.
See: http://www.miek.nl
On 1 mrt 2009, at 23:49, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
PS. Re: your side note below on the makeup of the ISOC Board, we'll
update the list to show the community or mechanism that appoints/
elects Trustees. In the meantime, the IETF appoints 3 Trustees
(out of 13, 12 voting and me non-voting). T
On 4 mrt 2009, at 16:33, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't believe that there are any legal implications to m
On 1 jun 2009, at 16:56, Jari Arkko wrote:
I do think though that additional information at the level of "This
RFC describes FOO. A standardized version of FOO can be found from
RFC ." is useful. I think -07 version of the 3932bis is an
improvement over the previous one, and should be
On 10 jun 2009, at 00:53, Samuel Weiler wrote:
Kind IAB,
Today is the thirty-seven month anniversary of the IAB's request
that IANA sign .arpa and related zones. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Sam,
Thanks for your reminder.
Earlier this month the IAB mailed IANA with a request to provide us
yet signed .arpa nor related zones. Have
they provided the IAB with a plan?
Not yet.
--Olaf Kolkman
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
(either because
the author has published it with Creative Commons, or because the
Trust allows full derivative rights for stream specific I-Ds) would
narrowing down the rights by publication as an IETF stream RFC cause
any problems?
Feedback welcome,
--Olaf Kolkman
PGP.sig
Description:
On Aug 28, 2009, at 4:13 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I am under
the understanding the the IESG Note in RFC is provided by the
IESG not
by the RFC Editor. Is there a document that says otherwise? (I'm
certainly open to the possibility that perhaps these documents
should
not have an IESG no
On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get
a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional
IESG note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b)
something that is always applied to the publis
On Sep 2, 2009, at 7:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
We simply
require that, if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting
specific changes to a document ("specific changes" including,
but not limited to, so-called "IESG Notes") and the ISE and
authors decide to not incorporate those proposed
On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what
is and
what is not a problem into the Trust's hands.
No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not
to change
the text. If a suggestion isn't considere
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Polk, William T. wrote:
I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position: if the
IESG
and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last call the
proposed
IESG Note and let the community determine whether (1) this is an
exceptional
case meri
On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Tim, I definitely agree with you that it should be the IETF community
that is last called.
Normally, the IESG judges IETF consensus.
However, if it makes the IAB more comfortable for the IAB chair to
do the
consensus call, that's fine with me.
On Sep 20, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's
CLIPPER chip initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a
great example of open discussion.
That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.
We've had var
On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
Ok - the problem I have, and the reason that I asked, is that it is
not
clear to me that the Independent Series Editor (ISE) is part of the
RFC
Editor any more than the ISRG is going to be. Thus it is the ISE
not the
RFC Editor that will be
During previous technical sessions I mailed an announcement about the technical
plenary and in those announcements I've asked something along the lines of:
> If you consider asking a question during the open-microphone session it
> would be helpful to send that question to the IAB in advance.
>
Julian,
You wrote:
>
> This problem was reported over three weeks ago. Are we really incapable
> to fix something simple like that within three weeks?
We are at a point where making trivial changes to headers and boilerplates
leads to discussion about more substantive matters and causes eve
On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Brian,
>
> This seems worth being a bit pedantic about, to make sure we all share the
> same understanding: I take your interpretation to mean that the RFC Editor
> can, on their own initiative, fix the problem(s) that Julan has raised and
>
On Jan 4, 2010, at 3:08 PM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones '
>as a Proposed Standard
>
Colleagues, Ron,
In the context of Joe Abley's reverse server
I hope a T-Shirt will feature my favorite French hero Super Dupont
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdupont
--Olaf
Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
signature.asc
Descrip
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:45 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
> The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would
> like
> feedback on those dates before making a decision.
Support.
--Olaf
Colleagues,
I have posted draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-00.txt
We have evolved the quality criteria for our entry-level maturity level and
todays documentation doesn't reflect that. With this document we intend to
align our characterization of PS with what is the current day rea
On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Chris Griffiths wrote:
> IETF Community,
>
> The IETF Trust Trustees would like feedback from the community on several
> issues:
> - We have received requests that we cannot accommodate and have
> consulted legal counsel to review our options
> - The tr
On 2 sep. 2013, at 22:14, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, 02 September, 2013 14:09 -0400 Scott O Bradner
> wrote:
>
>>> There is at least one ongoing effort right now that has the
>>> potential to reclassify a large set of Proposed Standard RFCs
>>> that form the basis of widely use
Barry,
Question, in-line.
On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I mostly agree with this draft, but I have a concern. Let's anchor
> that concern off of this bit that Jari said:
>
>> Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the
>> original
>> mode of oper
Colleagues
[I have added a number of people who were active in the discussion previously
to the CC, my apologies if that is bad etiquette but I wanted to make you
explicitly aware of this.]
Based on the discussion so far I've made a few modifications to the draft. I
am trying to consciously
On 13 sep. 2013, at 19:17, S Moonesamy wrote:
> The intended status would have to be BCP instead of Informational.
Correct…. fixed on trunk.
> In Section 3.1:
> "A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
> specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
>
On 13 sep. 2013, at 20:03, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 16:56, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
>> * Added the Further Consideration section based on discussion on the
>> mailinglist.
>
> I believe the current document is fine for a major part of the IETF
On 13 sep. 2013, at 21:02, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hey Olaf,
>
> Thanks for stubbornly pushing on with this.
>
> Comments (sorry I haven't read the thread to see if others have already made
> these comments)…
This is to acknowledge I took the suggestions that I am not quoting.
> ---
>
[Barry added explicitly to the CC as this speaks to 'his' issue]
On 13 sep. 2013, at 20:57, John C Klensin wrote:
[… skip …]
>> * Added the Further Consideration section based on
>> discussion on themailinglist.
>
> Unfortunately, IMO, it is misleading to the extent that you are
> capt
Based on the conversation below I converged to:
While less mature specifications will usually be published as
Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in exceptional
cases, publish a specification that still contains areas for
improvement or certain uncertai
On 16 sep. 2013, at 17:31, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> As actionable for this draft I take that I explicitly mention
>> that Section 4.1 2026 is exclusively updated.
>
> While I understand your desire to keep this short, the pragmatic
> reality is that your non-IETF audience is likely to read
FYI.
I just posted the third version of the draft at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02
Diff with the previous document:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02.txt
I will let Jari know that I believe we converged a
On 18 sep. 2013, at 01:54, John C Klensin wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I generally agree with your changes and consider them important
> -- the IESG should be seen in our procedural documents as
> evaluating and reflecting the consensus of the IETF, not acting
> independently of it.
>
Agreed….
> Of th
On 25 sep. 2013, at 12:44, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Reading this draft, I wonder: why would someone still want to go for Internet
> Standard, since PS is "mature", "as mature as final standards from other
> standards development organizations"? Maybe you want to expand on this.
There is a real
82 matches
Mail list logo
