Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 08:50:29AM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote: > I'm going to side with Keith here, right down the line (for once :-). > The issues of security, scaling, money, credibility etc all weigh > towards being careful with RFC's. > > As to the "information propogation" argument, we

Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 05:12:07PM +0300, Aki Niemi allegedly wrote: > >I find it hard to interpret that text in any other fashion -- they want > >to describe end-to-end protocols by DNS name. > > I don't quite see what the difference here is to .edu for example. Isn't > this indeed very similar to h

Re: Names of standards-track RFCs

On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 05:09:46PM +1000, grenville armitage allegedly wrote: > > Request All to include a WG name in the subject line []s like [manet]. > > (which includes this email too!!) > > My mysteriously functional email filter rules appear to work > just fine without extra crud in subject lin

Re: admin director (was The other parts of the report..)

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 08:49:53AM -0400, Scott Bradner allegedly wrote: > > imo we should start a search for a Administrative Director now Does it have to be a hire, or can it be contracted, like anything else? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] htt

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

Drafts are as important as RFCs in demonstrating prior art against silly patents. De facto we, as a community, already depend on being able to find old drafts to defend ourselves. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 10:49:19AM -0400, Eric Rosen allegedly wrote: > I've never thought that the IETF was OBLIGATED to "hide" old > I-Ds; that seems a rather far-fetched interpretation of anything in > RFC 2026. Also it's impossible. > In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's offi

Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 01:19:15PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > >Brian, > > > >I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is > >actually less complex than Scenario O. > > I would really dispute that. There are layers of comple

Re: My views on the Scenario O & C

I agree completely with Bob. I want to point out one issue where vigilance will be important: On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 12:39:53PM -0700, Bob Hinden allegedly wrote: > Housing the IETF administrative activity in ISOC seems to me to be a > much simpler solution to our administrative problems and will r

Re: My views on the Scenario O & C

On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 01:57:50PM +0200, Erik Huizer allegedly wrote: > Your remark suggests that ISOC let the IETF down on non-technical > issues that the IETF was expecting to handle. Erik, that was not my intention. What I want to avoid is the feeling that the friendliness of who we deal with,

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

As Ted says, the IETF should stay out of passing judgment on the validity of claims and/or fighting patents. It's really way outside of our charter. Anyone can set up a separate organization to do that if he/she wants. However, this case is just the worst of many. It is abundantly clear that th

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 09:59:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum allegedly wrote: > On 6-okt-04, at 6:12, Scott W Brim wrote: > > >However, there appears to be rough consensus emerging that an IPR > >assertion is acceptable if any of the following are true: > > > -

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a little more "nuanced", for example you don't have to disclose until it looks like your idea is going to be incorporated in something headed towards standards track, but generally I think what you describe is how things work now.

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 08:56:15PM +0300, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Scott W Brim wrote: > > Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a > > little more "nuanced", for example you don't have to disclose until it > &

Re: Disfranchise - use of language [Was: Re: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the lastmoment]

On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 01:23:19PM -0700, Stephane Maes allegedly wrote: > Carsten, > > You may be confusing my concern. It is not an issue of voting or having no > voice in reaching consensus. It is an issue that if people who intended or > needed to participate FTF are prevented to do so by late

Re: IPv4 consumption statistics and extrapolations

On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 12:00:09PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote: > > From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> *IPv6 only exists because of a previous round of FUD about IPv4 address > >> exhaustion* - one spread by the proponents of yet another protocol > >> that was going

Re: IETF hotels charging the deposits and not reimbursing?

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 06:15:03PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote: > At IETF60, the Sheraton hotels charged me both for the deposit of one > day, and for all days I stayed there. > > Now at IETF61, I noticed that the Hilton has also charged me for the > deposit (one day), but did not take that

Re: Why the IPnG effort failed.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 04:38:37PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years, > we are doing OK. > > It is always good to learn from history, of course. That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15 years

Re: Why the IPnG effort failed.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 09:27:55PM +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin allegedly wrote: > At 17:52 18/11/2004, Scott W Brim wrote: > >That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15 > >years, or less, during which time we would come up with a truly new >

Re: Consensus? IPR rights and all that

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 07:00:32AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote: > > I agree with what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure about this > wording: > > > The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA > > and the IETF the rights in data that is needed to satisfy

Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 08:19:16AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote: > The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be > used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding > sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the > surplus will

Re: [newtrk] Why old-standards (Re: List of Old Standards to be retired)

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 11:47:10AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > Harald, while I agree in principle, I would suggest that some of > the comments Eric, Bill, and others have pointed out call for > the beginnings of an evaluation of your experiment. I further > suggest that evaluation is ap

Re: Issue: #751: Section 7 - Removability, using term "BCP"

On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 09:19:12PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: > See: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=751 > > The text suggested by Scott would mean to change: > >Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal > and financial home of the IASA t

RE: IASA BCP Conflict of Interest Clause?

Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 13:08: > We can require that the IAOC establish rules for dealing with > conflicts of interest, and if a member does not follow them (or > perhaps does so too > frequently) they can be recalled; if that fails, particular decisions

RE: IASA BCP Conflict of Interest Clause?

Margaret Wasserman <> on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 13:49: > I agree with Stephen and others. We could probably just add > something in the BCP saying that the IAOC should define and publish > an appropriate conflict of interest policy and leave it up to them. > > Margaret Can you think of

Re: Adminrest: BCP -03: Compensation for IAOC members

The other Scott's approach looks like it's clearly the most reasonable, and follows a model we have used before. No reimbursement for performance of services; no reimbursement for meetings that are associated with IETF; reimbursement for travel to special (not IETF-associated) meetings where n

Re: Consensus? #771 Powers of the Chair of the IAOC

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: - There is nothing clear about whether the IAOC chair is peer, superior or subordinate to the IAB chair or the IETF chair (or, for that matter, the ISOC President). I don't think the last point should be addressed. This document lays out the specific mechanisms fo

Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

Dave Crocker wrote: It occurs to me that a Last Call for an independent submission has an added requirement to satisfy, namely that the community supports adoption of the work. We take a working group as a demonstration of community support. (However we used to pressure for explicit statements

Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members

On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: I think this line of thought has died down without any great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence: The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from exceptional reimbursement of expenses)

Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members

On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall gener

Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members

), but the IAOC can also establish rules for non-exceptional expenses (e.g. mileage for meetings) because its the only way they can get people to come to do something for example. OK At 09:12 AM 1/10/2005, Scott W Brim wrote: On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have

Re: Consensus? #733 Outsourcing principle

On 1/12/2005 04:51, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: In principle, IETF administrative functions should be outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions "in-house" should be explicitly justified by the IAOC and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these decisions and staffin

Re: Consensus? #733 Outsourcing principle

On 1/12/2005 07:44, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: --On onsdag, januar 12, 2005 07:29:27 -0500 Scott W Brim wrote: On 1/12/2005 04:51, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: In principle, IETF administrative functions should be outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions

Re: Consensus search: #725 3.4b Appealing decisions

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 02:11:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote: > To start, I must admit I have trouble equating an individual or > community's disagreement with a decision to a DOS attack, though I do > know how disconcerting and distracting an insistent complaint can be. > I just don't

Re: iasa-bcp-04: unanimity in section 3.4

On 1/14/2005 19:05, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: Proposed change: Get rid of "unanimous" (both times), replacing it with "consensus" and appropriate editorial smoothing. wfm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iet

Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

On 1/19/2005 05:47, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft: I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough consensus (Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building a DoS attack defense that we don't

Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property

On 1/21/2005 10:49, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that "sole control and custodianship" applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the "Old text" seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gull

Re: Proposed consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: >The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should >include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, >an explanation of how the decision or action violates the BCPs or violates

Re: New ground transportation option in Minneapolis

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 11:54:10AM -0600, Christopher A Bongaarts allegedly wrote: > In the immortal words of lafur Gumundsson: > > > The good news: > > Last December Minneapolis started a Light Rail Service between > > downtown and Mall of America with a stop at the airport. > > The ride costs $1.25

Re: IETF onsite networks; discussion, cash, knowledge

On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 11:14:33AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > While I've suggested scrapping the terminals in the terminal > room on and off for years, I'd be reluctant to give up on the > printers. Perhaps it is a sign of advancing age, but, when a > document gets above some length or

Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC

On 4/6/2005 11:20, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote: > Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually > typing tags by a search for a pointing device, selection from a menu, > etc. (avoiding typos while entering long tags, but interrupting the > mental flow of writing content to search for

Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC

On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > what the toy shows after about a day is: > > prefer nroff: 8 > prefer xml: 37 > neither: 9 I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both? __

Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))

I don't understand why making names public would increase electioneering over what we already have. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Uneccesary slowness.

On 5/19/2005 11:20, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > Thomas, >> 1) You can't hurry the above, e.g., by imposing artificial deadlines, >> or by saying "no objections during LC, therefor ready to go". You >> have to have the reviews, and you have to iterate. > > The IETF is supposed to produce a

Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 12:30:44PM -0700, Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts allegedly wrote: > Steve, > Thank you for your thoughts. I am not sure about the next step, but I can > clarify some of the points that were unclear. > British Telecom submitted it to the ITU SG12 in January and we had > unanimous app

Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?]

On 07/01/2005 13:02 PM, Ken Carlberg allegedly wrote: > My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in > taking the position that respondents can be classified as either: > a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or > uncomfortable with the decision, or c)

Re: When to DISCUSS?

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > Phill, > > Just picking out the nub of your message: > > >There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non > >issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform. > > > >I have been con

Re: When to DISCUSS?

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote: > > There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is > > very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing > > for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate. > > Limiting the

Re: Paris Social EVent - EMail from Kim Wallet - Legitimate or phishing?

On 07/12/2005 11:48 AM, Steve Silverman allegedly wrote: > I registered for the social event in Paris, paid for it, and then > received several emails asking > for my credit card info from Kim Wallet, purportedly from > france-connection. Is this legitimate or a phishing expedition? > No I haven'

Re: Meeting Locations

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 05:27:45PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > My expectation is that we'll stick to the pattern of two N American > meetings plus one in another region - but meeting planning is an art, > not a science. I like the deterministic formula based on the number of drafts wr

Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

Discussion has been couched in terms of whether term limits are a good thing. Really, what the discussion should be about is whether limits on the NomCom are a good thing. It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them. The NomCom is pivotal in IETF "governance" and

Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

On 08/01/2005 11:24 AM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: > Scott, > > I dunno. I thought that some of the discussion has been about > circulation of folks in leadership positions. Some feel its good, > some feel its bad. Its not strictly term-limits as in goverment > posts, as quite many former IA

Re: Keeping this IETF's schedule in the future...?

On 08/03/2005 13:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > I haven't heard *any* negative comments so far. We will attempt > a systematic survey to be sure. Sorry to disappoint you :-) It's absolutely the right thing to do in Paris where restaurants aren't open until 7:30, but I don't like goin

Re: Keeping this IETF's schedule in the future...?

On 08/03/2005 15:36 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: >> PS: the key point is "restaurants serve after 8pm"... This can >> be an issue in some places in winter. > > > Of course, we could make that -- which really should be “restaurants > serve after 9PM” to allow for meetings running over or th

"The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems"

This conjecture was disturbing, but calling it a feature was even more disturbing. After a bit of pondering, and wondering what different groups in the IETF might mean by "complex", my first thought was that the IETF has never, ever solved one. For example, we do QoS in small pieces that don't fi

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

On 08/06/2005 19:07 PM, Brian Rosen allegedly wrote: > If two groups are arguing with one another, and one has implemented code and > the other has not, I think we would give great weight to the running code. Weight yes, but "great" weight? Many things have been implemented that only work in spec

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

On 08/07/2005 13:43 PM, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote: > That's an excellent point. To a great extent > we suffer from what the FreeBSD community calls > "bikeshed" > (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING) > > and while I think it's excellent that peopl

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

On 08/07/2005 17:58 PM, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote: > Scott W Brim wrote: > >> Hi Melinda. Are you saying that people shouldn't comment on an idea >> unless they are implementing it? > > > No, clearly (I hope) not. Just that it seems likely > that may

Re: Two laptops lost right inside IETF WG meeting room

On 08/09/2005 09:37 AM, "DENG, HUI -HCHBJ" allegedly wrote: > Dear all > > We two people lost our laptop right inside the WG meeting room > during the break time of the 63rd IEF meeting. > > We are wondering whether we could accuse the La De Congress > for their security guard and get some compen

Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

I would appreciate not hearing the same arguments again and again. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)

On 09/15/2005 17:09 PM, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote: > At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote: >> Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How >> much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in >> any way standardized, and in fact probably considers ietf >> old an

Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote: > On 9/23/05 at 3:59 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > >So far, references have been made to time-sensitive and to > >signalling, yet it is not clear how this applies to the work that is > >being defined as seeding the area. S

Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 05:15:05PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for > either or both of > > 1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute > mediator. Good idea. These disputes take a lot of care and interested

Re: Beyond conflict

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 03:17:56PM -0400, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote: > At 02:43 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: > >Michael StJohns wrote: > >>Jabber room dedicated for the specific discussion. > > > > > >im systems do not have threading, nor is it clear how threading > >could/should be done. -- > >

Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 01:54:10PM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > > >It certainly makes sense to reword it for a pattern of difficulty or > >exclusion. > > and the method of making objective, verifiable assessments that this > pattern exists will be...? Don't even try. Choose people who

Re: Fwd: Can the USA welcome IETF

OK, this is getting silly. Have you ever been to an IETF meeting? You should understand the IETF culture before presuming to advise governments. The IETF is not a puppet of any government, and even if it were, that has nothing to do with RFC3683. The Last Call was reissued precisely to support t

Re: Fwd: Can the USA welcome IETF

On 10/17/2005 13:12 PM, Eduardo Mendez allegedly wrote: > Mr. Scott, > IANAL. But I know when you hurt someone with others, all have to pay. I'm done. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 08:48:23AM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > Brian, since PESCI is your show, could you reflect and comment > on at least some of this before we hold a BOF and plenary > presentation... a BOF that, were this an effort that was not > driven by the IETF Chair, might well n

Re: Vancouver schedule

On 11/10/2005 07:29 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > I basically like this schedule. The idea of having the evening free for > a leisurely dinner, off-agenda work, or both is, and remains, very > attractive. I like the idea of being done with sessions and having time for a leisurely dinne

Re: On revising 3777 as in draft-klensin-recall-rev-00

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 08:15:45AM -0800, Dondeti, Lakshminath allegedly wrote: > Perhaps that's one way to prove that the bar is high/low. Another > way is to ask around with this in mind and see if we all run into > old rumors of what has been tried and with what results :-). It would be an intere

Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?

The reason we have the "deadline" is to protect the Secretariat from having to be heroes. However, best would be if the need for such protection didn't arise. Instead of assuming that things to be discussed in the meetings will be written just before the meeting, and creating complexity and burea

Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 10:07:27AM -0500, Gray, Eric allegedly wrote: > Making your - admittedly optimistic - assumption and following > it to a conclusion leads me to suspect that many (possibly most) WG > meetings would likely be subject to last-minute cancellation if all > remaining issues a

Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs)

On 01/05/2006 11:28 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > Even those of us who are strongly supportive of ASCII as our > primary base format and those who believe that the effort needed > to simplify illustrations and diagrams sufficiently that they > can be accurately represented in ASCII artwork

Re: Binary choices, polling and so on (Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus")

On 01/07/2006 09:02 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: > That said... I like opinion polls, of various forms, and use them > frequently (some would say "too frequently"... I guess I've demonstrated > most of the bad sides of opinion polls over the years...). a useful function > In the g

Re: Normative figures

On 01/09/2006 10:41 AM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote: > Are you looking for normative figures? If so, can you point to an > example where you think they are necessary? (I'd like to avoid a > discussion of packet diagrams for the moment if that's OK) Normative figures perhaps. Normative equations

Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

On 01/09/2006 14:02 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > While I agree that diagrams are not simply a religious issue, I > think that there are many cases in which the use of diagrams, > especially complex ones, leaves people with the impression that > they have understood something when, in fact,

Re: Ietf Digest, Vol 21, Issue 63

On 01/22/2006 01:19 AM, Elwyn Davies allegedly wrote: > - EGP Modifications FGP, the follow-on gateway protocol. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: > Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good > examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a > chance of getting an RFC. Why not? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https:

Re: Anatole in-room net confusion

Last night the nice desk lady said go ahead and agree to pay for access, and that at checkout the charges will be disappeared. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Guerilla Party Events for Wednesday

On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 08:24:45AM -0800, Stephen Casner allegedly wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Susan Estrada wrote: > > [snip] > > **Tuesday's Trivia** > > > > 1. One IETF attendee appeared on more than a > > dozen IETF name badges at the Stanford IETF -- name him or her. > > Milo Medin. I have no

Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues

On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 05:00:14PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly wrote: > I would like to see a two tier scheme for standards (i.e. eliminate > the illogical and misleading status 'DRAFT') but on the > understanding that standards require periodic review. By periodic I > mean that there shoul

Re: the iab & net neutrality

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 05:00:07AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > There are two strategies that make more sense and have more > chance of success. One is precisely what 4084 attempted to do: > lay out categories and boundaries that, if adopted, make better > information available to pote

Re: 2 hour meetings

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote: > I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation > generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage > of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm > generally use

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter > > of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses > > in Eu

Re: About cookies and refreshments cost and abuse

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 11:16:33AM -0500, Steve Silverman allegedly wrote: > In Paris, we switched to a late dinner which was necessary in Paris > but we did this in Dallas. Was this a general decision that I > missed? I prefer dinner from 6 - 8 and a night session where the > local customs support

Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 04:12:24PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote: > >>> locators are a lot easier to deal with if they're > >>> location-independent > > >> Huh? Did you mean "identifiers are a lot easier to deal with > >> if they're location-independent"? > > > I really was

Re: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar

On 05/17/2006 12:15 PM, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > This is a community. It extends beyond the boundaries of the IETF and > the IETF is not the "center' of that community. Is there a center? Is there a centroid? If so, what/where? ___ Ietf mailin

Re: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar

On 05/30/2006 12:17 PM, Yaakov Stein allegedly wrote: > I also don't imagine that there are that many co-participants > of SG4 and IETF. Well, we have at least one SG4 rapporteur who is pretty active. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.iet

Re: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)

On 06/07/2006 09:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer allegedly wrote: > These rules are perfectly reasonable (even if they would cost me my > acknowledgment in draft-ietf-ltru-matching) but: > > 1) They do not seem to be written somewhere. I cannot find them in the > RFCs talking about RFCs (meta-RFCs? IPO

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

> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Creating one of these archives is easy, just view the HTML page and > click 'save as archive'. > > My copy of firefox doesn't seem to have that feature. Maybe you need to include the archive extension: http://maf.mozdev.org. When I do I get th

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

On 06/25/2006 15:55 PM, Stephen Sprunk allegedly wrote: > the IETF is supposedly about > running code, and complex equations that the average programmer cannot > understand without digging up a college math book are unimplementable in > the real world. Pseudocode is far, far more valuable than pre

Re: Tables in specifications, and looking back

On 06/28/2006 08:16 AM, Spencer Dawkins allegedly wrote: > On one minor note... > >> Tables are a possible solution (if the machine is finite). But most >> people find them too low-level. > > I have just returned from about three days of fairly intense > conversations about one of our current BOF

Re: Meetings in other regions

On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: > Once upon a time, > the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, > a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, > so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in > random

Re: Meetings in other regions

Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure what "those statistics" referred to. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

Can you normalize like this? 1523 drafts have "authors" from North America, and so on. If a draft has three authors from North America and two from Europe, is the draft counted five times or two times? swb On 07/15/2006 00:18 AM, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote: > > From: Henrik Levkowetz <[EM

Re: Meetings in other regions

On 07/17/2006 15:46 PM, Andy Bierman allegedly wrote: > - I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room' >for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks. This was wonderful, and >about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete. >I want this format every time.

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

On 07/19/2006 20:08 PM, Clint Chaplin allegedly wrote: > Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend: > they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees. The weekend before the IETF? Hey, that's an advantage! ___ Ietf mailing lis

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

Excerpts from Sam Hartman on Wed, Nov 01, 2006 04:34:20PM -0500: > [I could not find the ITU's liaison to the IETF. Scott, if such > exists, I'd appreciate you forwarding this to them.] The ITU-T's liaison from SG13 to the IETF is Hui-Lan Lu. CCed. FYI SG13 is about to send something to the IET

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: New Liaison Statement, "ITU-T Sudy Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications"]

--- Begin Message --- Title: ITU-T Sudy Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications Submission Date: 2006-11-07 URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=277 Please reply by 2007-04-16 From: Georges Sebek(ITU-T SG 13) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: IE

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: New Liaison Statement, "ITU-T Sudy Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications"]

Excerpts from Pekka Savola on Tue, Nov 07, 2006 09:40:07PM +0200: > > Sigh. ftp3.itu.ch appears to be one of those sites where a firewall > breaks window scaling and reduces the performance to about 50 > Bytes/second (or less). > > For more, see > http://pace.geant2.net/cgi-bin/twiki/view/PER

gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary statement: This draft is

  1   2   >