All of this depends on the quality of the review and how it's followed
up on. Having to push back on insistent nonsense is a problem. A good
review that engenders a lot of discussion on substantial issues is very
worthwhile. We should foster those -- they are important. This is no
different
Excerpts from Melinda Shore at 17:55:57 -0400 on Wed 21 May 2008:
> On 5/21/08 5:49 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So we have reinvented STUN?
>
> This is probably closer to Paul Francis's NUTSS stuff without
> the cool crankback and especially without resolving the locat
On 5/30/08 7:54 PM, Ted Hardie allegedly wrote:
>> There are several issues that get mixed up together in defining a late
>> external review process. By definition, this is an external review. So
>> it is not reasonable to say that the reviewer should think like a WG
>> member, or have the full e
On 6/25/08 5:37 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)"
I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very good excuse
not doing X might do. One known very good excuse is Y."
That is more or less
On 6/25/08 8:24 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
--On Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 07:59 -0400 Scott Brim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... and draft authors should include explanations in their
drafts of the reasons an implementor might legitimately have
for not implementing the "sh
On 6/25/08 1:37 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
My concern is about anything that
might get turned into another rule while various of us are
trying to concentrate on technical work and not, e.g., watching
every entry in the IESG's tracker logs.
Indeed.
More generally, thinking carefully a
On 7/19/08 7:28 AM, Jari Arkko allegedly wrote:
So, my suggestion would be to add a change to our long list of tool
development tasks. In its simplest form, submissions should be allowed
even after the deadline has passed if tracker state > pubrequest. Other,
more complex policies might also be
On 7/19/08 10:36 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
But that, IMO perfectly sensible, combination of formal posting
cutoffs (whether to protect the Secretariat or to make sure
documents were available when they needed to be) with informal
provision for waivers, gradually morphed into a firm,
chi
On 8/12/08 12:02 PM, TS Glassey allegedly wrote:
As to the IPR Page - it does not
allow for updates of already filed IPR Statement's to include new IETF
documents which violate the patent rights after the posting of the IPR
Notice.
How can a description of how to use a technology infringe on a
On 8/14/08 11:15 AM, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 allegedly wrote:
I would be curious to hear the reasoning for keeping these on file,
apart from 'historical record', since I am not convinced the IETF IPR
database is the right place to hold onto IPR disclosures simply for
historical purposes that only app
Hoping openness succeeds ...
My name was submitted to the NomCom for the position of IAB member,
and I've told the NomCom I'm willing to be considered. Of course,
this is no guarantee that if I get selected, I'd still be able to
serve. Please send them whatever positive or negative feedbac
On 10/28/08 2:44 PM, Ben Campbell allegedly wrote:
> I got a failure report for [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Can that be updated to a
> current address prior to publication?
Just fyi he's [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or
On 11/13/08 10:06 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly wrote:
>
> I beleive that the question would not arise If we had a coherent
> Internet architecture
>
> The idea that an application can or should care that the IP address of a
> packet is constant from source to destination is plain bonkers.
Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many
> > people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in
> > the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there
Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Tue, Dec 02, 2008 12:02:25PM +1300:
> 1. We know of no alternative to a longest-match based approach to
> routing lookup for the inter-AS routing system (commonly known as
> the DFZ).
>
> 2. To control the long-term scaling of that approach, we need to
> control
Excerpts from Iljitsch van Beijnum on Tue, Dec 02, 2008 11:57:07AM +0100:
> On 2 dec 2008, at 5:37, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's just that the multi-prefix model is unfamiliar.
>> There's plenty of reason to believe that it won't work well. Static
>> address selection rules, no way fo
Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote, On 12/12/08 2:26 PM:
> At Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:15:23 +0100,
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda
>> submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published in
>> time, the meeting shouldn't take place.
Lawrence Rosen allegedly wrote, On 12/13/08 2:04 PM:
> The notion is not right, albeit that it is reflected in the current IETF IPR
> policy, that a process can be in any way restricted from being improved
> because someone planted a copyright notice on its essential description. An
> description o
Mark Seery allegedly wrote on 11/30/08 10:38 AM:
> Some questions have also risen WRT identity:
>
> http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-11-30-whoareyou.pdf
>
> Is identity a network level thing or an application level thing?
Whatever. All of the above. There are many possible ways to use
Hi Eliot.
I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve yet. At
this time the face-to-face meetings are still essential, and one
cannot evaluate candidates without good knowledge of what an I*
member's life is like at them. If/when we manage to reduce the
significance of the face-t
John C Klensin allegedly wrote on 1/9/09 11:11 AM:
>
> --On Friday, January 09, 2009 8:36 -0500 Scott Brim
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eliot.
>>
>> I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve
>> yet. At this time the face-to-face meetings are still
&
Excerpts from Ed Juskevicius on Fri, Jan 23, 2009 12:29:33AM -0500:
> This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions
> published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
> controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted
Excerpts from Tim Bray on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:30:04PM -0800:
> The vast majority of these FSF-solicited comments have been respectful and
> polite in tone.
Someone who comes by, drops an opinion and then leaves, is not giving
any of us respect. I am always pleased to have a constructive
discu
Dave: I disagree ...
Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of our
time to unsubscribe but that's it. The ietf list will see the same
messages it has already been seeing; his list will carry a few other
messages for people who choose to use it. Messages sent to his list
Excerpts from Randy Presuhn on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:50:57PM -0800:
> > Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version
> > of it
> > is more than silly.
>
> Particularly since mail to the -request address bounces, and
> using the web interface to unsubscribe apparently
Excerpts from Cullen Jennings on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:40:55AM -0700:
>
> On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>
>> Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of
>> our time to unsubscribe but that's it.
>
>
> In my opinion
Excerpts from Dave CROCKER on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:25:14AM -0800:
> Scott Brim wrote:
>> I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
>> all interactions?
> When someone demonstrates a permanent pattern of disruptive behavior,
> with no counter
Excerpts from Thierry Moreau on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 09:53:42AM -0500:
> You seem to assume that patent rights are created by the IPR
> disclosure, while they are created by the *patent* (in this case
> still at the application stage) that you didn't study.
Actually intellectual property rights are
Excerpts from Rémi Denis-Courmont on Thu, Feb 12, 2009 03:03:02PM
+0200:
> Oh, I was one relevant working group mailing lists. But from my
> experience, I was not at all taken seriously, until I started
> showing up at the meetings. In other words, remote participation
> does _not_ really work, in
On 07/26/2007 19:20 PM, John Kristoff allegedly wrote:
> Responding to something just overheard in the plenary...
>
> No, it's not about complexity, but nor is it about robustness. It's about
> "functionality" and where to place it. A simple word search should help
> highlight this point.
I'm n
On 14 Sep 2007 at 09:38 -0400, Thomas Narten allegedly wrote:
> David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As I have said elsewhere, I've come to believe that one of the
> > fundamental failures of the IETF is that it permits or even
> > encourages protocol design to be directed by corner cases.
On 25 Sep 2007 at 18:40 +, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote:
> very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of
> questions rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the
> question, what is the objective definition of "reasonable and
> nondiscriminatory"?
The more a disclosur
On 26 Sep 2007 at 14:06 +0200, Harald Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
> Note that if:
>
> - Company A has a patent on nanosecond gate opening
> - Company A has issued the claim above, in conjunction with an IETF
> standard
> - Company B has a patent on the application of slow-drying oil paint
>
On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to
> > specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be
> > either that all IPR must be offered accor
On 22 Oct 2007 at 17:46 -0400, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
> * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion. I
> agree that his current version would not fly. However I do think
> there are working groups that could make conclusions about their
> patent policies and for whi
On 24 Oct 2007 at 11:01 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly wrote:
> What I would like to do here is to arrive at a set of terms that is
> considered to be sufficiently RANDZ
NO license required is better than RANDZ.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@iet
On 26 Oct 2007 at 11:35 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly wrote:
> Is this an official FSF campaign?
Half of them are CCed to fsf-campaign.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Excerpts from Hallam-Baker, Phillip on Wed, Oct 31, 2007 08:38:45AM
-0700:
> How many Working Group participants who vent on patent issues have
> read RFC 3669?
>
> Of those who have read it, how many consider it to be binding?
>
> All RFC 3669 does is to allow endless discussion of topics that
Excerpts from Dean Willis on Thu, Jan 31, 2008 09:37:53PM -0600:
> Excuse me, but isn't this in the boonies way outside town? Are we
> going to be stuck in a $200 a night hotel with no reasonable
> alternative accommodations eating vastly overpriced hotel food and
> facing a one-hour commute to any
I propose that we eliminate global cutoff dates and let each WG
establish any cutoff dates it needs for its own purposes.
In general we strive to have the principal forum for discussion be WG
mailing lists as opposed to the physical meetings themselves. That
should be the default case. Most WGs
closer to the convention centre but more expensive) let me know, please,
and we can see what we can talk the hotels into.
Thanks ... Scott
--
Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +1.607.280.4000
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with
At 04:12 PM 4/10/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>it's completely natural that people will try such approaches -
>they are trying to address real problems and they want quick
>solutions to those problems. but if the quick fix solutions
>get entrenched then they cause their own set of problems which
At 01:27 PM 4/12/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
> > architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these
> days it
> > takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
>
>perhaps architectural impurity al
At 07:56 PM 08/01/2000 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Well, in the first place, I don't take orders from you, Mr. Baker.
>So you can take your strident orders to me and put them where they
>fit best.
I'm all for heated technical discussion, and this is not it. At this
point I strongly suggest th
At 09:22 PM 11/06/2000 +, Bob Braden wrote:
>Henning,
>
>Please see RFC 1025 from Sept 1987, or IEN 160 (online at
>the RFC Editor web site) for a November 1980 bake off.
>Is this 20 years ago early enough?
Since the first Pillsbury Bake-Off was 50 years ago, no. But what's the
issue? Is P
On 13 Dec 2000 at 14:50 -0800, Randy Bush apparently wrote:
> my wife, a preschool teacher was in oslo. she said that she had never
> conceived that so many add (attention deficit) people could be in one
> place. our population has an overly high proportion of people who
> think that they are mo
I see we're about to embark on the 7th iteration of the NAT mail wars.
I don't believe anything new is going to come out of it. Last night's
arguments at the microphones were quoted from previous mail. Could you
take it somewhere else? Is there an alt.nat group?
Given that the overcrowding at this IETF was the worst ever, and really
interfered with work, not to mention the social event ...
Building on a previous suggestion:
* When you register for the IETF, you specify which WGs you are
interested in in priority order.
* Simultaneously WG Chairs subm
(Continuing this for its value in exploring the issues ...)
On 14 Dec 2000 at 16:57 -0800, Jelena Mirkovic apparently wrote:
> >* Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms,
> > giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG
> > chairs). Once a ro
On 14 Dec 2000 at 17:31 -0800, Dave Crocker apparently wrote:
> At 03:58 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Scott Brim wrote:
> >Building on a previous suggestion:
>
> Just to be clear, my suggestion is diametrically opposed to the list that
> you specified.
>
> You are suggesting ver
On 15 Dec 2000 at 10:56 -0500, Keith Moore apparently wrote:
> > How does the idea of NAT destroy the global Internet address space?
>
> because in a NATted network the same addresses are used in different
> parts of the network. addresses are meaningless.
How much meaning does "Keith Moore" ha
On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:07 -0500, Frank Kastenholz apparently wrote:
> I believe that the only choices are
> - limit attendance to "the right people" or
> - accept the tourists and panda-watchers and
> that the IETF meeting has evolved.
The right people include "monitors" these days. For example
On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:08 -0800, Matthew Goldman apparently wrote:
> Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read
> the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by
> the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I
>
On 20 Dec 2000 at 23:53 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] apparently wrote:
> I assume that by "Presentations", you mean "tutorial presentations",
> and not "Gee George, your proposal on the mailing list looks novel
> and interesting, but we're not getting it, could you take 10 mins
> in the WG meeting and
On 21 Dec 2000 at 14:24 -0500, Ken Hornstein apparently wrote:
> >Being open does not mean that new arrivals are free from learning the
> >special handshakes and the technical peculiarities of our work; they are
>
> Hm, my mistake, I guess. I read on the IETF web page that the IETF didn't
> hav
On 3 Jan 2001 at 16:08 -0600, Pete Resnick apparently wrote:
> If you can't write your proposal down in an I-D
> effectively, then it's not going to go into an RFC effectively and we
> might as well not waste face-to-face meeting time on the proposal at
> all.
Agree completely. That's when y
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:26:43PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> We need some sort of intermediate (or partial) "specification" which
> provides enough detail for making choice among approaches, but does not
> require a complete effort.
>
> Perhaps things like introduction and architecture, alon
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 04:49:54PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The RFC 2178 is only included until sec.12.1.4 in ietf/rfc site, so I
> want to find extra pages.
> Let me know how to find full paper ( RFC 2178 ) ASAP.
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2178.txt
> P.S. I saw an email address - the fo
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 10:50:08AM -0800, Grenville Armitage wrote:
>
>
> Einar Stefferud wrote:
> [..]
> > had my own home system and discovered that I had no interest in being
> > totally visible and accessible at all times, especially when I was
> > not always around to monitor things.
Jon, this is a nit, two digressions off the main thread, so I'll take it
off-list. More mail soon.
...Scott
On 4 Feb 2001 at 17:29 +, Jon Crowcroft apparently wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Brim type
> d:
> >>Although address obfuscation th
Just write them in plain text, nroff or not, using a decent mode-aware
text editor like Alpha (http://alpha.olm.net). It's also a pretty good
raw HTML editor.
On 21 Feb 2001 at 22:50 -0800, Bora Akyol apparently wrote:
> I am trying (trying is the key word) to write Internet drafts on a
> power
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 04:47:42PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> You know, the people on this list make great computer scientists, network
> architects, application and protocol designers. I'm not so sure how many of
> us understand CHI. Some of us like to think we do, but I suspect very few
> of u
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 04:42:45PM -0500, John Klensin wrote:
> * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do
> so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or
> occasional schedule?
Please continue. Do so at every IETF modulo demand.
> * If so, should we continue with IESG
The IESG and IAB activities have become more important to the IETF at
large recently. They should be given more space in line with their
increased significance to the participants. Trying to cram it all into
one after-dinner meeting doesn't feel right anymore. I believe in 2
plenaries.
Having
I think any attempt to get the IETF to do certification is doomed to
embarrassment and failure of one form or another (quick, or slow and
painful). However, the ISOC just might be interested and able to pull
it off.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 01:01:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If the 2119 keywords included the any caps versions, eg "must" and "Must"
> and...etc, you'd have to avoid using those keywords in your english to not
> invoke the definitions in rfc2119 everywhere. If it is limited to
> the all cap
On 31 Mar 2002 at 10:53 -0500, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 3/30/02 -0800, Peter Deutsch wrote:
> >Your mileage may vary, etc but if people are taking the IETF work and
> >not growing it in the IETF, I personally conclude that the IETF is
> >failing to provide a suitable home for n
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 01:20:40PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Suggestions:
>
> - limit the goals: charter most groups to only do tasks that can reasonably
> be completed within a year, or 18 months at the most. allow a six month
> extension when necessary, but expect that the group will *shut
On Wed, May 29, 2002 09:36:44AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Aside from situations in which some competing technologies are
> encumbered and some are not, we're now finding ourselves in situations
> where all of the proposed technologies are encumbered but have
> different licensing terms. I thi
On Wed, May 29, 2002 09:10:20PM +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> How do we best approach the design of Internet technologies so that
> IPR-related obstructions to their deployment will be minimized?
That assumes IPR-related goals are obstructions. For me they're a pain
but I've been burned so I hav
On Wed, May 29, 2002 02:58:59PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> It is not clear that an entire week of discussion would be fruitful
> for that sort of deep and broad requirement for substantial process
> and concept invention, nevermind a couple of hours at the end of a
> long work-week, with little
On Thu, May 30, 2002 10:59:27AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying
> that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it
> can be made to work, second choice is encumbered but
> royalty-free technology, and la
On Thu, May 30, 2002 08:59:50AM -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
> > > My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying
> > > that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it
> > > can be made to work, second choice is encumbered but
> > > royalty-free technology, and
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 05:54:25PM -0700, Randy Presuhn allegedly wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Relatively few WG minute takers pay much
> attention to the Mortimer/Agnes/Duane bullet in
> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html
>
> Is it time to update the web page to reflect actual practice?
>
> Might
Ted: Very nice but I would go further. You believe that everyone in the
IETF has either internalized the mission or will in the course of
participating. I think the IETF has already lost that unity of mission,
particularly with the influx of corporate participants who were not
around in the ideal
On 11/28/12 15:53, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time,
> the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to be
> the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy unless
> they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting
Those are all endpoint implementation problems and thus not subject to IETF
standardization :-)
It's a communication problem. If you want your audience to understand
exactly what you're saying, and implement along very specific lines, you
need to tell them in a way they understand. Personally I prefer a
quieter approach, but I've been told that these days one MUST use MUST
or implementors j
On 01/07/13 15:40, Riccardo Bernardini allegedly wrote:
>>
>> There appears to be interest in clarification, but nobody really wants to
>> revise the immortal words of RFC 2119, although there is a proposal to add a
>> few more words, like IF and THEN to the vocabulary (I'm hoping for GOTO,
>> m
On 02/01/13 20:34, "Abdussalam Baryun"
allegedly wrote:
>I recommend that IETF WGs consider start an initial historical I-D
>including their memories of important process or design of protocols,
>at least each 20 years WG participants could document their technical
>involvement history within WG
On 02/03/13 11:29, "Lixia Zhang" allegedly wrote:
>I believe what AB suggested is a historical record specifically for each
>WG: what you started with, what you went through, how you ended, what you
>have learned, both principles and lessons.
90% of that is meeting notes. Everyone keeps good me
On 03/01/13 11:09, John Levine allegedly wrote:
> We should meet in Iceland, where the local time is always UTC. It has
> other advantages, too, roughly equal ping times to the US and Europe.
It's a good place for meetings, and surprisingly easy to get to from
most of the world.
I see three different factors being discussed together.
- whether an AD needs technical expertise across the area
- whether an AD's work hours can be decreased
- what is TSV's problem anyway
The size of the job is mostly orthogonal from the level of technical
expertise required. Most of
On 03/03/13 15:14, "Michael Richardson" allegedly
wrote:
>To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
> a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
(I just want to nit on this: I hope people don't think TSV is just about
congestion.)
On 03/04/13 12:51, "Mary Barnes" allegedly
wrote:
>[MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with
>little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his
>email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with
>proven technical skills in another area that als
On 03/10/13 09:12, Brian Trammell allegedly wrote:
>> Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are
>> imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit
>> without the benefits of using the I-D mechanism.
> This seems like something that could be left to the d
On 03/10/13 11:15, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> Please don't. Currently we receive a flood of a few hundred drafts two
> weeks before each meeting, which gives time for some triage. I do not
> wish to receive a few hundred drafts on the first day of the meeting,
> with no time for triage, b
On 03/10/13 15:43, John Levine allegedly wrote:
>> - Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the
>> IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could make a
>> public statement at the beginning of each year's nominations
>> process that they will not confir
On 03/10/13 18:45, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote:
> On 3/10/2013 1:04 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>> +1. We do not want to manage by ideology - consider how well that
>>> serves political parties.
>> Right.
>
> Well, I don't know. To be honest "The I* should
> contain more than one sort of human
On 03/11/13 14:41, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
> This year's set of nominees was far more diverse than in the past and
> yet the IESG will still be entirely male and entirely North
> American/European. Of course, only people that bothered to use the
> tool to input comments would see that. So, i
On 03/11/13 15:03, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
> [MB] ... What I'm looking for is for IETF to recognize
> that there may be a bias in how these decisions are made and to make a
> conscientious decision to be aware of how this bias may impact their
> decisions.
Sounds good. +1. Thanks.
On 03/13/13 11:10, Stephen Casner allegedly wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> > Subject: Re: Martians
>>
>> > "Martian" is nice expression.
>>
>> Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet
>> work? It certainly has history in the IETF a
On 03/13/13 14:27, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
> The task I think I agreed to, on Monday, was to formulate language
> changes to RFC 3777, to make this more clear.
>
> Herewith:
>
>>7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used
> ...
>> 2. The nominating committe
On 03/13/13 14:51, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
> At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> So I suggest:
>>
>> 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
>> determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized
>> from the desires expressed by the
On 03/14/13 08:23, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
> One question I have is whether there isn't a list for newcomers to ask
> questions that some of us can be on to help them before they get to
> the meeting?
I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I
just came from.
On 03/19/13 19:50, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
> There's a long history of "martian" badges at the IETF. During the Stanford
> IETF many many years ago, there were something like a dozen "Milo Medin"
> badges (and I seem to remember at one point Milo was wearing none of them),
> as well as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/19/13 20:38, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote:
> Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always
> backwards.
It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin
On 03/20/13 15:16, Jorge Contreras allegedly wrote:
> I would strongly recommend that legal counsel be consulted before any
> such "list" is produced or used by IETF/IESG/Nomcom.
Or don't generate it at all. Trying to have a complete list of human
attributes to diversify to looks like an engineer
On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" allegedly wrote:
>So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
>acknowledgments would be in order.
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.
1 - 100 of 299 matches
Mail list logo
