ote that in the case that DDNS is in use and we are triggering off lease
expiration, the process needs to take the concepts and issues of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-02.txt
into account.
I have added Ralph Droms to this. Ralph, your suggestion?
So it
ic A. Hall wrote:
On 11/22/2004 4:04 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> DHCPv6 PD (prefix delegation; RFC 3633) to obtain a prefix
Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. So now we just need implementors
to provide it and for service providers to offer it before declaring the
problem as solve
Would someone with first-hand knowledge of the reasons "several major
corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT with IPv6" be
willing to compare those reasons with the reasons listed in
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01, and identify any reasons that might be
missing from Gunter's docu
And I've had much *worse* experiences with the IESG requiring changes to
documents ... including receiving suggested text (after many months of
the document disappearing into a black hole) that actually *reversed*
text inserted earlier at the request of an AD.
- Ralph
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 15:12
Comments in line...
- Ralph
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 18:28 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
> > [...]
> > And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often
> > enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback fro
Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically
astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that
technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or
control (veto power).
Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 19:56 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple:
> >
> > 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative
> > concern that
> > involves the viability of the specification.
>
> not reasonable. even merely informative text ca
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 11:12 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > > 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative
> > > > concern that involves the viability of the specification.
> >
> > As a practical matter, the line between normative and informative is
> > likely grey enough
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 12:19 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Let me also restate for clarity:
>
> > Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically
> > astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that
> > technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned e
Steve - Final decision is made as it is today; proposed change is timing
and context for review...
- Ralph
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:28 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ralph Droms writes
> :
>
> >So, without meaning any offense to the A
Keith - thanks for the pointer to "Harrison Bergeron". Coincidentally,
I was trying to recall this story in a conversation recently and had
forgotten the details and the author...
But, I don't see how it applies here. I'm not claiming "Nobody was
smarter than anybody else." Yakov explained it b
John - editing to get directly to your questions:
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 18:45 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> (1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term or
> two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an
> obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors,
Comments in line...
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 18:48 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > But, I don't see how it applies here. I'm not claiming "Nobody was
> > smarter than anybody else." Yakov explained it better than I have:
Ah, but the candidates know who they are, and can arrange their own
positive input.
If the list were open, might the nomcom receive more and better balanced
input?
- Ralph
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:49 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
> > I don't unders
Better yet would be late binding: .
- Ralph
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 15:28 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Dave,
>
> >Here's my own take:
> >
> >It is empty bureaucracy. It is form, without content. It is additional
> >effort, with no benefit.
> >
> >It is reasonable and necessary to require that docu
I'd like to understand the process through which Dr. Roberts' request
was reviewed. The first reference I can find to Dr. Roberts' request is
in the 2005-04-14 minutes of the IESG
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/view_telechat_minute.cgi?
command=view_minute&id=318 see below). According to t
Brian...
On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 17:50 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Ralph Droms wrote:
> > I'd like to understand the process through which Dr. Roberts' request
> > was reviewed. The first reference I can find to Dr. Roberts' request is
>
n the May 26
> meeting (agenda item 6.2).
>
> Brian
>
> Ralph Droms wrote:
> > Brian...
> >
> > On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 17:50 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >>Ralph,
> >>
> >>Ralph Droms wrote:
> >>
> >>>
John - as a concrete example of the problem you describe, the dhc WG
perceived that there was a looming problem with exhaustion of the DHCP
option code space. So, we wrote up a procedure (RFC 2939) requiring
documentation of new options in an RFC, implying technical review by the
dhc WG. Now, we
Allison...
On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 10:22 -0700, Allison Mankin wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Under RFC 2780, IPv6 hop-by-hop option numbers are granted
> either with an approved IETF document, or an IESG review.
It seems that neither the reference to IESG review in RFC 2780, nor the
definition of IESG revie
Bill...
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:23 -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 00:15, Scott W Brim wrote:
> > In SG13 there was considerable debate, and at the end the
> > group *allowed* exploration of the topic through development through a
> > new draft recommendation.
>
> assuming,
Allison - in pervious e-mail to you, I made the statement "blaming the
tools is a pretty lame excuse", which makes several unwarranted
assumptions about motivations and the constraints within which the IESG
works. I could have expressed my frustration with the lack of clarity
and detail in the pub
Sounds like a great idea. I'm looking forward to additional detail
about how decisions are reached as well as more clarity in the
description of those decisions.
Thanks, Brian...
- Ralph
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 15:19 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> The IESG is interested in carrrying out an exp
Brian - while I haven't thought through all of the implications of the
process in draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt, I don't think the two-stage
process will necessarily significantly length then process. The
proposed process would require re-shuffling of of specific tasks, but I
don't think it fun
tocks is suspended, then the shares traded will be assumed
to be 0.
The NomCom voting members will start their term on October 14, 2005,
after
the IETF community has had a chance to review the random selection
process.
Please volunteer.
Thank you,
Ralph Droms
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
STOCKS USED IN T
It's a design choice. We've already had some spam and unexpected
subscription attempts against the nomcom05 mailing list.
The messages are being approved within 12 hours.
- Ralph
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 08:08 -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Recent nominations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] have prompted resp
12 at 22:26 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> > The messages are being approved within 12 hours.
>
> 12 is less than 150, should I just send it again ?
>
> Bye, Frank
>
>
>
>
> __
rtman-- Security Area
Allison Mankin -- Transport Area
(empty - two year) -- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
(empty - one year) -- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
The IAOC member whose term will expire is:
Ed Juskevicius
- Ralph Droms
Chair, Nom
nated position to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Ralph Droms
Chair, NomCom05
Under the Nominations Committee procedures defined in RFC 3777,
the IESG is responsible for providing a summary of the expertise
desired of the candidates selected for open IESG positions. This
information is included below, a
nated position to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Ralph Droms
Chair, NomCom05
+++
Under the Nominations Committee procedures defined in RFC 3777,
the IESG is responsible for providing a summary of the expertise
desired of the candidates selected for open IESG positions. This
information is included below, a
Brian - you've hit on an important point here. It strikes me that the
process for defining our own document standards has no fundamental
differences from the process for defining any other standard. Why shouldn't
this archival document standard be developed and adopted as a Standard in
the same w
Iljitsch raises an interesting point that I'll generalize: can we
maximize the learning by identifying specific applications to target
for IPv6 compatibility during the IPv4 eclipse?
- Ralph
On Feb 29, 2008, at Feb 29, 2008,9:34 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> What's going on with the prep
Lakshminath - thanks a lot for publishing this report. We all
appreciate and applaud the work you and the Nomcom put into this
year's I* selections, and I especially appreciate that you invested
the time and effort - after all that earlier hard work - to produce
this report. It will be of
On Mar 6, 2008, at Mar 6, 2008,8:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
>> problems related to 3777:
>>
>> On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>>
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
> [...]
> Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring
> authority resides in the confirming bodies.
Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my opinoin, the Nomcom
is the hiring committee; the confirming body is the ov
f its nominaions. As Brian writes,
the IAB can ask for specific additional information in those cases where
it finds that information is necessary to complete its due diligence.
- Ralph
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2008-03-17 14:16, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>
>>
&g
Without some way to choose which rule to use and when to use it, how
can a recommendation that has conditional rule usage be implemented?
- Ralph
On Jun 3, 2008, at Jun 3, 2008,8:50 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Longest match in 3484 is a hack, ant
No, you're not the only one seeing insanity.
- Ralph
On Jun 18, 2008, at Jun 18, 2008,12:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me see if I understand this.
>
> - This is the specification for SMTP. It's was first used on the
> Arpanet.
>
> - It is probably as widely deployed as IP and TCP. Ma
Would a reasonable BCP for future docs looks something like:
terms defined in RFC 2119 are to be capitalized for clarity;
alternatives for RFC 2119 terms, such as "ought" and "can" are to be
used in
non-normative text to avoid confusion
- Ralph
On Jun 30, 2008, at Jun 30, 2008,10:08 AM
Iljitsch - I understand the theory behind what you're describing...in
practice, it's a hard problem to know where all the prefixes are that
should be changed; worse yet, it's hard to know which prefixes in
which parts of the configuration should be replaced with new prefixes,
and which shou
Sam - I think most of the issues in your review of draft-raj-dhc-tftp-
addr-option-04 can be resolved by reviewing the purposes of RFC 3942
and publishing Informational RFCs describing DHCP option codes.
Fundamentally, the reason to publish RFCs under the process described
in RFC 3942 is to
d (and, in fact, mostly
unimplemented).
- Ralph
On Dec 2, 2008, at Dec 2, 2008,3:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 02 December, 2008 15:23 -0500 Ralph Droms
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sam - I think most of the issues in your review of
draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04 ca
Jari - I agree that mentioning security issues, pointing to the
Security Considerations in RFC 2131 and citing RFC 3118, is appropriate.
Responding to Richard...
On Dec 2, 2008, at Dec 2, 2008,5:35 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
Ok, maybe I'm not understanding what's being suggested or maybe I'm
everyone who took the time to participate in the
process through nominations, interviews and input on the candidates
under review.
- Ralph Droms (chair), for the 2005-2006 IESG Nominating Committee
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org
;s name, e-mail
address and telephone number (if available) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Ralph Droms
Chair, NomCom 2005-2006
-
Transport Area:
The technical areas covered by the Transport area are those with data
transport goals or with transport design issues and impact on
congestion in In
below. Please send nominations, including the nominee's name, e-mail
address and telephone number (if available) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Ralph Droms
Chair, NomCom 2005-2006
-
Transport Area:
The technical areas covered by the Transport area are those with data
transport goals or with transp
close at 1700EST on Tuesday, March 21.
Please send nominations, including the nominee's name, e-mail address and
telephone number (if available) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Ralph Droms
Chair, 2005-2006 IETF Nominating Committee
___
Ietf mailing list
were nominated for a seat on the IAB during the previous nomination
process, please contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to renominate
yourself for this new search.
- Ralph Droms
Chair, 2005-2006 IETF Nominating Committee
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
ate in the process through providing input to the NomCom on the
candidates under review.
- Ralph Droms (chair), for the 2005-2006 IESG Nominating Committee
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
were nominated for a seat on the IAB during the previous nomination
process, please contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to renominate
yourself for this new search.
- Ralph Droms
Chair, 2005-2006 IETF Nominating Committee
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
miles. Bert was not able to commit, but indicated he has not
yet been offered the ICANN role.
The NomCom joins the rest of the IETF community in thanking Bert for
volunteering his valuable time and extraordinary skills to the IAB,
the IETF comunity and the Internet.
- Ralph Droms (chair), for the
Com on the
candidates under review.
Finally, I thank, once again, all the members of the NomCom for their
continuing engagement, careful review and significant contribution to the
Internet community through their work on the NomCom.
- Ralph Droms (chair), for the 2005-2006 IESG Nominating
What is the current state of the nea WG? I don't see it listed at
http://ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html
- Ralph
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Sam - I see where the nea BOF was more-or-less associated with the Internet
Area at IETF 65. Do you expect that nea would (if eventually chartered)
land in Internet or Security?
- Ralph
On 5/26/06 10:58 AM, "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>&
Dave - one quick follow on to your observation about "will not work" that
falls somewhere between "will not work" and "don't like it". There is
another possibility: "works, but there's a much simpler way to meet the same
requirements"...
- Ralph
On 5/26/06 11:34 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTE
5/26/06 11:50 AM, "Antonio F. Gómez Skarmeta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ralph Droms escribió:
>
>> Dave - one quick follow on to your observation about "will not work" that
>> falls somewhere between "will not work" and "don't l
Perhaps we could avoid similar delays in generating the final list of
volunteers in the future:
Secretariat generates a list of eligible volunteers as early as possible
(As far as I know, eligibility data is available well before call for
volunteers is posted)
List is used to verify volunte
OK, now I have to step in with a response and to correct a couple of
misconceptions.
On 9/28/06 12:27 PM, "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Issue 1: Even if the option is desirable and the motivation for
> it is clear, the specification is inadequate in definitions and
> specificity
Bob - depends on the meaning of "straw poll". Any vote that results in an
action should be restricted to the 10 voting members. My understanding of
"straw poll" is an opinion poll that results in no direct action.
But I'm speculating and don't know what "straw poll" means in the context
we're di
Here are my comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt. In general, I think
the document is ready for publication. Included below are a few substantive
comments that I would like to see addressed before publication, and some
editorial corrections/suggestions/comments.
- Ralph
-
Substantiv
I read Dave's words "clear statement of what actions must be taken to clear
the Discuss" not as requiring the specification of a complete fix, but
rather as an indication of what needs to happen to the draft.
Implementation details of meeting those requirements are left to the WG.
I agree with Dav
Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted
to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes.
I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open.
Only drawback to separate mailing list is that it requires active
involvement to get
I visited Prague about two years ago and had the same experience as Ed. I
traveled via the Metro and on foot, visited all the tourist traps; had no
problems and never felt unsafe.
- Ralph
On 3/7/07 10:54 AM, "Edward Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will attest to Prague being survivable.
Huh? DHCP is carried in UDP and IP. There is a little funkiness in the
DHCPv4 transport, which we wouldn't have need if IPv4 link-local addresses
had been defined when RFC 2131 was published. DHCPv6 uses link-local
addresses and garden-variety IPv6.
- Ralph
On 4/20/07 1:48 PM, "Hallam-Baker,
>
> If it was pure IP it would work.
>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:57 PM
>> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; David W. Hankins; ietf@ietf.org
>> Cc: GEOPRIV WG
>> Subject: Re: [Geo
Can we please leave the specific opinions about DHCP out of this discussion?
The dhc WG has done its due diligence, with review and support from the IETF
and the IESG, to put into place processes to govern assignment of extensions
to DHCP and to accommodate future extensions to both DHCPv4 and DHCP
DHCP is also a frequently-used building block (some would say
attractive nuisance). Stig, Jari and I are trying to identify drafts
from outside the dhc WG that extend DHCP or use DHCP in novel ways,
so we can provide guidance to the authors of those drafts as early as
possible. Jari and S
I seem to remember that the idea of a postmortem was discussed at
some point. I don't know that anything came of that discussion.
Having some facts and data to examine probably beats anecdotal
observations about network behavior.
I think David is wise to observe that experience like "DHCP
Hear, hear. We're making binary claims in a grey-scale world of
economics.
Put the costs on the table and let the enterprises and ISPs fight out
PI/PA.
- Ralph
On Sep 13, 2007, at Sep 13, 2007,5:27 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
wrote:
my persistent question to the enterprise o
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case of IPv6,
very little
attention was paid to facilitating transition by maximizing
interoperability
with the IPv4 installed base.
Dave, I have to agree
Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits...
- Ralph
On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case of IPv6,
very little
attentio
t long ago
left the station...
- Ralph
On Oct 6, 2007, at Oct 6, 2007,4:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-05 09:12, Ralph Droms wrote:
Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits...
- Ralph
On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007,
yment issues.
- Ralph
On Oct 6, 2007, at Oct 6, 2007,4:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-05 09:12, Ralph Droms wrote:
Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits...
- Ralph
On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:
Seems to me we need ensure some formality in the experiment if we
expect to get anything out of it. Asking everyone to send in notes
from their experience won't be enough - especially, as some have
predicted, if many participants get exactly 0% Internet connectivity
while IPv4 is off.
So
Fred - to be clear, that DHCPv6 interop testing was not associated in
any way with the dhc WG. I'll let the organizers comment on any more
general sponsorship arrangement or other association of the event with
the IETF.
- Ralph
On Dec 17, 2007, at Dec 17, 2007,12:23 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
All,
Yes ... the announcement in question should have read "recharter",
not "new working group".
- Ralph
At 09:30 AM 2/27/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, The IESG wrote:
> A new working group has been formed in the Internet Area of the IETF.
> For additional information, cont
At 09:45 PM 4/24/00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > I agree! Why create a finite anything when an infinite
> > possibility exists?
>
>Exactly. If you designed an open-ended protocol, you're far less likely to
>ever have to rewrite it.
You just have to redeploy new implementations when you ad
Thanks for catching that error. We'll fix it in the -25 rev...
- Ralph
At 02:56 PM 5/21/2002 +0200, Dan Lukes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to inform you about copy&paste error in
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-24.txt.
>
>-
>15.9. Release message
>...
>Servers MUST discard
On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:43 AM 11/20/12, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 11/20/2012 10:20 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
>> I think this is a point of confusion, anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought the process was for the previous NomCom to be coopted to
>> address any
>>
>> unexpected mid-term vacan
On Jan 4, 2013, at 2:55 AM 1/4/13, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> You have been warned.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/video/request-ketchup-philly-cheesesteak-leads-001204299.html
I'm sorry - seeing the words "Philly cheesesteak" and "Subway" in the same
title are such a non sequitor for this long-time
Note that this last call is a second last call, to gather comments on the
publication of the document considering the IPR disclosures that were published
late in the previous IETF last call.
- Ralph
On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:57 PM 2/5/13, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from t
Typo on my part. There is just the one disclosure.
- Ralph
>
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> President GTW Associates
>
> -Original Message- From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:53 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: a...@ietf.org
> Subjec
On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, "Eggert, Lars" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger wrote:
>> I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
>> situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want
>> to fix it. Saying there is
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Thank you for sharing your experiences in such an open way, and for your
> long and dedicated service to the Internet community.
>
> Eliot
Unequivocally and enthusiastically +1
- Ralph
>
> On 3/12/13 4:41 PM, David Harrington wrot
On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:39 AM 3/15/13, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I wanted to give recognition to someone. As Ralph Droms stepped down from the
> IESG this week, he completed 24 continuous years of service in the leadership
> of the IETF, with a dot on his badge. The last four years he has be
On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:53 PM 4/30/13, David Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
> -- bob dylan
>
> we do not need measurements to know the ietf is embarrassingly
> non-diverse. it is derived fro
On May 1, 2013, at 1:59 PM 5/1/13, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> The blog nicely classes the problem as being too heavy-weight during final
> stages. The quick discussion thread seems focused on adding a moment at
> which the draft specification is considered 'baked'.
>
> I think that's still too
On May 1, 2013, at 5:00 PM 5/1/13, Scott Brim wrote:
> A draft does get cross-area review, at least once, often more than once.
> Some drafts in some WGs get it earlier than others, by explicit
> invitation. Others don't get it until the latest they can, when they go
> to last call ... but a pr
On May 2, 2013, at 9:47 PM 5/2/13, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 4:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Instead of imposing even more work on the RFC Editor team, I suggest
>> that you find someone in the WG, in your company, in the IETF
>> community (etc.) to help with the language issues. I
On May 3, 2013, at 8:59 AM 5/3/13, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Just a few points...
>
> Michael Richardson writes:
>
>> I'll repeat what has been said repeatedly in the newtrk and related
>> discussions. The step from ID to "RFC" is too large because we are
>> essentially always aiming for "STD"
On May 15, 2013, at 10:39 AM 5/15/13, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
>>
>> Keith
>
> Broken, agreed.
>
> Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
>
> The motivation for a par
On May 16, 2013, at 5:00 PM 5/16/13, "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
>> working
>> group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
>> particip
Dave - I hope you'll indulge my selective quoting as I have a couple of
specific points to address. My apologies if I end up quoting you out of
context...
On May 16, 2013, at 12:23 PM 5/16/13, Dave Crocker wrote:
> [...]
>
> So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to AD workload and
On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore
wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
>> length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
>> appropriate way, or whether the protoc
I propose $40 for a seat at the table in the front of the meeting
rooms, $20 for a seat toward the front with extra legroom and $100 for
an exit row.
- Ralph
On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:46 PM 3/22/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Ever had a dot on your badge? Well this is your chance.
...
You ca
So, with all this discussion, I'm still not clear what to expect.
When I walk up to a train ticket kiosk in Schiphol, should I expect to
be able to use my US-issued, non-chip credit card (AMEX, VISA - I
don't care as long as *one* of them works), or should I have a fistful
of Euros handy?
One of the contributors, in my opinion, to the evolution of an "ad hoc meeting
in a bar" to "Bar Bof" as Fred defines it has been a series of small actions,
intended to facilitate the organization ad hoc meetings, that have had the
unintended consequence of increasing the apparent close relation
My recollection is that they were a gift from Craig Partridge...
- Ralph
On Aug 17, 2010, at 2:23 PM 8/17/10, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 17 aug 2010, at 19.43, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> I actually really appreciated Marshall Rose's shirt from Danbury -
>>
>>"Internet Staff"
>
> +1
>
>
Bernard - this text is, in my opinion, intended to sync the internal data
structures if the RA advertises different prefixes than the last time the host
was attached to this link:
On reception of a Router Advertisement the host MUST go through the
SDAT and mark all the addresses associated
I am OK with publication of the document if Bernard's comments are addressed.
- Ralph
On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:19 PM 8/18/10, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Overall, I think the document the document looks good. Some comments:
>
> Section 2.4
>
>The host uses a combination of unicast
>Neighbor
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
