Please let me know what I got wrong.
Have a great night,
Spencer
--
Wednesday Plenary - Harald
This is the first Korean IETF we've had, and the smoothest, most
well-run, and most fun IETF since Oslo
State of the Union tonight - Administ
What Dan said.
My impression is that you took the lessons from Minneapolis (for
instance, having a penalty box for ad hoc nodes who thought they were
ietf59) and didn't have to learn them from scratch. Thank you for
learning from the experience of others!
Spencer
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[E
Please contact me with any updates or corrections - thanks!
Spencer Dawkins
Thursday Plenary - Leslie Daigle
Erik Nordmark - locator/identifier split
This concept is sticking it's head up from multiple holes, like a
gopher
- Want to start the entire comm
I spent more time trying to capture what people were saying at the
plenary than trying to figure out who said what, but I would like to
figure out who said
[06:43:24] too much time needed to take something out there
and take it back to historic.
[06:43:44] suggests steps for things to automatica
I don't KNOW that what I'm thinking is true, but I'm wondering to
myself if the target audience for protocol specification maintenance
is all in the IETF...
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rick Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PR
This really is NEWTRK material, but I think part of the question is
"how long is it SUPPOSED to take to get to Proposed?"
I happen to like the idea that you could write an I-D during one IETF
meeting cycle, talk to people about it at the meeting, rev it a couple
of times on a mailing list during t
The draft minutes are now available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/04mar/minutes/plenary.htm. Please look
over them if you spoke at either plenary - I would like to quote
people correctly, and attribute quotes correctly.
I'm almost sure that "Eric" identified in the Jabber logs is usually
Erik
Hi, John,
I like the idea, and your draft is more than a skeleton plus examples.
There are a couple of concepts that could be added if you could come
up with non-perjorative names...
- "Filtered" actually splits into a few possibilities - the service
provider may actually be "filtering" known se
I know I can't be the first person to get a 90-KB bounce message from
a Majordomo server, but I got my first one this morning.
It's the e-mail you get when someone forges e-mail as being from you,
with a virus-bearing attachment, so the Majordomo server processes
every string in the virus as a sep
John Klensin and I wrote a draft on lightweight process experiments,
and would like to get other people's feedback before requesting last
call for publication as a BCP.
The abstract is
In the last two years, the IETF has initiated a number of
interrelated efforts to improve or fine-tune its
From: "Dassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Iljitsch van Beijnum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Harald Tveit
Alvestrand'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'IETF Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: Naming crap (Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents)
>
> Personally and
Dear Harald,
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: respect privacy please !
>
> I don't think a legal requirement for our process can jump over the
laws. Is like if we
> decide that we need to sacrifice one of us
> I don't know whether stopping "manyfolks" is right or not.
Sigh. Are there Internet Drafts that matter, that *don't* have inputs
from "many folks"? and if so, why?
I could never decide whether this was more likely a pure-hearted
attempt at modesty or an evil-hearted attempt to demonstrate that
My slides have been uploaded to the EDU website (see
http://edu.ietf.org) (thanks, James).
A couple of questions came up during our session that I needed to
check on the answers to:
- Yes, WG secretaries CAN be listed on WG charter pages - for example,
NSIS (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nsis
Please let me know if I'm misquoting or mis-hearing...
Thanks!
Spencer
---
1930-2200 Plenary - IETF Business Meeting - Grande Ballroom
- Welcome, and introduction - Harald Alvestrand
Wednesday is state of the union, Thursday is planning
1930-2200 Plenary - IETF Planning Meeting - Grande Ballroom
- Welcome, and introduction - Leslie Daigle
- IRTF presentation: ASRG Report
Have broken problem domain into pieces, some closer to IETF than others
Working on drafts for BCPs for ISPs that want to do the right thing
(DNSBL/DNSWL, por
Bob,
I think the intent of Iljitsch's note was that the "list of IETF
Standards" should appear in an obvious place (labeled "IETF
Standards") on http://www.ietf.org/ - if the label points to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html, that's fine.
... leaving the question of "what standards" are actually
Dear Harald-the-General-AD,
Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new
drafts? so we can stop having part of this conversation and, in the
meantime, stop making the problem worse?
I review documents for Harald as part of Gen-ART. It is really nice to
be able to look back a
We kind of went away from the first half of Harald/Scott's notes,
which was
From: "scott bradner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Harald asks
I feel some urgency to make sure that we have meeting arrangements
in place
for 2005 - without imperiling our ability to make the best
long-term
choices for the IETF
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
Hi Bert,
Both you and Ted have posted preferences for Scenario C that, to m
And If the [Ll]eadership of this organization screws up badly
enough, the Internet Community *WILL* route around the damage. It's
happened before. That's how W3C came to be.
Eliot
Erk!
I haven't been involved with W3C since 2000, but I WAS involved in W3C
during the late 1990s. It's worth poi
Ummm, when I saw
That's not quite the point. Both in an ad hoc group like Adminrest,
and in the IAB and IESG, it is entirely possible that in a
discussion
of the real issues, something like the following would be said:
A: The real problem here is X, who simply can't do his/her job.
B: No, it's Y,
I'm registered for the Tuesday night social, but now have an "informal
meeting" conflict - I don't know if the social is sold out or not, but
if you'd like my ticket, please e-mail privately.
Thanks,
Spencer
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
h
It looks like I have a taker for this ticket - thanks - and the nice
people at Alcatel said they have sold out, just FYI...
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF General Discussion Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Just a quick thank-you to Alcatel for providing t-shirts that are
long-sleeved, heavier-weight than usual, and (my personal favorite)
non-pure white - you have doubled the number of long-sleeved IETF
t-shirts in my closet, and I'm still wearing the IETF 55 shirt every
chance I get ...
Spencer
What I'm afraid of is that we may end up in a situation where many
people have all the addresses they need and don't see any reason to
adopt IPv6, while others who are late to the table can't get
sufficient IPv4 address space and will have to adopt IPv6 out of
necessity, resulting in a fragment
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3819.txt was published in July
(blush!)...
Finally: I rather get annoyed when L1/L2 people tell me
"that's not the way our L1/L2 works!", blah, blah, blah.
Fine. Engineer us something that does work; stop telling
us to engineer for broken media. IP has won in
esigned without clue. Similar
environments, but different readers.
And thanks for asking!
Spencer
- Original Message -
From:
Fred Templin
To: Spencer Dawkins ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:11
PM
Subject: Re: Why, technically, MIP and
Sally, thank you for all the help you've provided (including to me
personally), and thanks for this heads-up - it's got to help us give
better input to NOMCOM to know if people are planning to be
replaced...
Spencer
As I have been individually telling folk informally for a while now,
I am step
Please send corrections (and especially name mis-attributions
and mispellings) to me privately, so I can make them in the official minutes,
but this is what I caught so far...
Spencer
1930-2200 Plenary - International
Ballroom Center - Welcome, and
introduction - Harald Alvestra
From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality
Considerations section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not
adequate.
Do the Mo
I apologize in advance for feeding this thread, but the conversation
seems to be diverging from what I thought we had actually been
previously...
IIRC, we've semi-recently been off to the land of "PCs in homes and
cell phones". I can say I was honestly dismayed that cable providers
in the Unit
Scott,
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 3.5 goes on to say:
Decisions of IAOC members or the entire IAOC are subject to appeal
using the procedures described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. Appeals of
IAOC decisions go first to the IESG, then continue up the chain as
necessary to the IAB and the ISO
Brian suggests:
Maybe we need a much more restricted right of appeal. Strawperson:
Decisions of the IAOC are subject to appeal exclusively on the
grounds
that they have materially damaged correct execution of the IETF
standards process [RFC2026]. They follow the appeals process
applicable to
Agree with Joel here.
I would hate to see someone "appeal" an IAD decision because they
happened to disagree with it. That would make the job impossible.
There probably are some things that should be subject to appeal. I
don't know what they would be. If we can not list them, I don't
think we
community" food chain, and if we
get as far as "IAD makes horrible decision that neither IESG nor IAB
nor the ISOC BoT think is horrible decision", having individuals
continue to pursue an appeal is probably fruitless anyway ...
Please see notes inline.
Spencer
From: "Brian E Carp
Is "Salary levels commensurate with experience and qualifications" a
cop-out? You might say "expected to be in the range..."
Adrian
Agree with Adrian here - "commensurate" makes sense when you hire
several people with a range of experience, or when you are waiting to
see who actually applies befo
OK, you guys are playing out of my depth, but ...
However, there can be situations where less than half the IAOC *is*
an appropriate majority - consider, for instance, a situation where
two of the IAOC are on holiday (leaving us with 6), one of the IAOC
is employed by EvilCorp, and the IAOC has
This works for me.
Spencer
IAOC decisions are taken by a majority of the non-conflicted IAOC
members who are available to vote in person, by teleconference, or
by email.
so that we avoid defining a specific quorum but do require
a majority of those who are not off in the woods.
Brian
__
John's concern and suggested improvements work for me.
FWIW, I am more comfortable with 2026-style appeals when we're talking
about publishing a protocol specification than I am when we're talking
about (for example) contracting for an IETF meeting location. The
short-term downside of not making
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a really
*strong* stance on protecting people from each other because
people *will* act badly. For example, the way I read your
note, the IESG will micromanage and the IASA/IAD will order
bagels flown in daily from New York. Appe
I thought that was implied by "required".. if we don't like
"required", I think we should drop the subsentence, leaving us with:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
"in-house" should be explicitly justified by the IAOC,
wit
Brian, John, Avri and Spencer: Can you state if you have an opinion
about whether or not the quorum rules should be in the document or
not?
Let's get this point settled before we dig into what the quorum
rules should be - if they don't go into the BCP, the whole text of
#746 gets passed as "ad
I can't promise I'm interpreting the discussion correctly, but my
understanding is that our bias is not in favor of outsourcing, but
against empire-building and bloat. As long as we say "zero-based", so
that we're giving the right clues about not spending lots of money in
ways that create the e
Harald,
So the IAD and IAOC don't have to respond to individual requests for
review unless IAB or IESG make the request on behalf of an individual,
but we all get to see requests and responses and make our own NOMCOM
inputs?
Spencer
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a de
This works for me...
Spencer
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Consensus search: #725 3.4b Appealing decisions
--On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 07:20:2
I agree with the idea that there are extremes when we talk about our
ideas on "review", but please don't assume that JohnK and Michael are
the only people at that end of the pool...
I had assumed that the IETF would let IASA run things with periodic
general feedback and rare specific feedback (
But that isn't what I (and probably Mike, Spencer, and others)
are concerned about. We are concerned about the "decision gets
made and then someone tries to second-guess it" scenarios, on
which we want to place extreme limits.
This is exactly what Spencer is concerned about... this, and the "bozo
- And last: Even if there is an appeals chain, I don't think the
IESG and the IAB should be in it. We are supposed to be selected for
the wrong sort of competence.
Harald
I'm really not trying to muddy the waters here, but
- I agree with Harald on this point, for exactly the re
I am actually not strongly in favor of principle (6) myself. I
think that the IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT could be trusted to decide
whether overturning a particular (non-binding) decision is
appropriate in a particular situation. But, others seemed to feel
strongly that allowing anyone else to ov
Hi, Tony,
It is long past time to get over any thoughts about reclaiming IPv4
space.
It will never happen. No organization is going to give up any they
have
until we are well past the point where anyone cares about getting
more.
IPv4 has reached the point of success/failure and is a dead end
p
This may be a mindstoppingly stupid comment, but "LowPAN" isn't
exactly a commonly-used term in my end of the swamp, and it wasn't
defined on the WG Review announcement ("go read the drafts", I
guess?). If you charter the WG, it would be lovely to define it on the
WG home page...
Spencer
__
I'm not smart about the definition of "fair" in an IETF context, but
it's also worth noting that
- as Steve Coya pointed out every IETF meeting for years during the WG
chair training, there is NO linkage between what the filename is and
whether it's a WG draft or not. The WG name is listed in a
ears ago when I was listening to someone who'd been around longer
than me sighing that he used to read ALL the DRAFTS, but was now
unable to read all the draft ABSTRACTS... and I can't remember if that
was Klensin or not :-)
Have a great weekend,
Spencer
From: "Julien Laganier
... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are (or that
working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt a draft as a
working group draft.
I see this as a bigger problem - some working groups that have more
work in individual drafts than in working group drafts, because th
now that we know that the secretariat keeps track of drafts that
claim
to obsolete another draft, we could make this Real Simple:
drafts that say they obsolete another draft get the later
deadline.
Harald (who won't have to decide that)
That would only work if it was "s
Since I was looking at 2418 again last night, I happened to wonder
about
7.1. Session documents
(deleted down to) The final session agenda should be posted to the
working group mailing list at least two weeks before the session
and
sent at that time to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for publication on th
My LORD, it's like I read Margaret's mind... I hadn't seen this post
when I sent my own whine to the list!
Spencer
I'd like to add-on to Spencer's point...
At 6:14 AM -0600 3/2/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
- Most important - we expect people to read the drafts before
d
Jim,
Thank you for the update. Best wishes on tomorrow :-)
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 6:33 PM
Subject: IETF62 Wireless Network Update
Gentlepeople,
We just wanted to give everyone an update on the state of the
wi
Just to add an observation - we've been in Minneapolis before, but
802.11 is catching on. Dean Willis noted early in the week that the
projectors and hand controllers used 802.11 in ad hoc mode, and I
hadn't noticed this at previous meetings.
I was seeing a LOT of other ad hoc networks, but it
Paris is hosted (including the WLAN), so there is at least 6 months
until it is needed
(is Nortel providing the Vancouver WLAN?).
OK, on a side note... a quick look back at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory.html enties since 2000 makes
me think we're still pretty successful at finding ho
[Merely observing, not proposing anything...]
If your last point is true, it suggests a model more like the W3C
technical plenary, in which the general format is an all-day plenary
in the middle of the week, preceded and followed by parallel 2-day
(sometimes 1-day) working group sessions for tho
FWIW, there was the separate suggestion that NOMCOM publish the NUMBER
of candidates who agreed to be considered, and this seems helpful
without setting off the usual alarms...
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jari Arkko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Just to agree with JohnL,
NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think
that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot
reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates
have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are
a can
Thoughts? Do other people think that it would help (efficiency or
visibility) for all discusses to be sent to the WG mailing lists?
Any thoughts on which of the three approaches above would work
better?
Margaret
OK, let me see if I understand the problem -
- the ADs probably aren't members of
Sorry, I was imprecise.
From: "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Spencer> - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow
posting
Spencer> by non-members
That's a violation of policy. P
Brian,
This works for me, too. FWIW.
Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous
to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process.
On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite
further
nominations before day N+14.
On day N+28, publish the final l
Hi, Sam,
"Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Spencer> My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of
Spencer> nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific
Spencer> AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of
Spe
Sorry for taking so long to follow up here:
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have one new "root cause" issue that I don't believe was included
in the original Problem Statement:
It takes too long to publish an RFC after final approval.
It currently takes several months for an
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the
question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees
say they would not have volunteered.
It's not my intent to develop BCP text on ietf@ietf.org, but I do feel
the need to say that we've had a previous suggestion that we could ask
pe
Bill, thank you for developing this tool and for posting the note
about it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Fenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Based on the positive feedback from my RFC-Editor graph, I've updated
some work that I started some time ago - a set of gr
Henning,
Thank you for a series of reasonable suggestions.
My thoughts are inline.
Spencer
There has been a fair amount of effort in accelerating the tail end
of the document process, i.e., after IETF last call. It is unclear
whether this has succeeded (as there don't seem to be any publish
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I was envisioning a "meta"-tracker, just like you already have for
drafts on the WG overview page. In other words, it would show
information from your database (WGLC date range, charter deadlines,
etc.) as well as the state from the 'real' I-D tracker.
It obviously wo
Henning,
Thanks again for the thoughtful set of suggestions.
Spencer
(3) Exhaustion: Far too many drafts linger years in 90%-completed
state, while the authors or the WG has moved on to other things. It
would be interesting to take a look at long-delayed drafts and see
how much they have rea
Agree with Henning, with one addition - some IETF participants DO
participate on their own time and on their own dime, but even
participants who are paying their own way want to see progress.
Please, ask for these commitments. If a company moves someone and they
are no longer able to meet the
Hi, Henning,
This was the most thought-provoking of your recent posts for me, so I
spent a little time thinking before trying to contribute to the
thread...
You have served us well by pointing these problems out. The meta-issue
for me is, of course, how we move forward on any of these proble
Ralph,
Are you saying that the vendor community interprets registration delay
as damage, and routes around it?
Spencer
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 wro
If I may plead for a moment of silence ...
There is an Internet Draft that is intended to give the community a
chance to provide comments on what the IETF vision of option
registration might be - or, might not be.
If we could discuss this draft, and say things like "I agree", "I
disagree", "
Perhaps things have settled down sufficiently for me to express an
opinion...
I am not an IANA weenie. But I think registries should register
things.
We have a decent amount of running code (for example,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg35953.html) that
says our attempt
Oh, great...
As Harald noted, draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy is pretty prescriptive
about saying that if we're in conservation mode for a registry, we
also need to be in evasive-action mode ("how do we get more room in
this registry?").
If we are already in conservation mode on IPv6 options,
What is the reason for continuing to list something obsolete as a
Draft Standard?
Ummm, because most people don't notice standards maturity levels?
But the idea of an "obsolete Best CURRENT Practice" makes MY head
hurt...
Spencer
___
Ietf mail
As most RFC authors know, when an IESG member identifies a problem
in
a draft under IESG review, he or she casts a DISCUSS ballot, with
accompanying text, and the DISCUSS has to be cleared before the
document can advance.
draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt talks about this. Even within the
IESG,
Dear Scott (Brim),
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.
Yeah, I agree completely with the sentiment. I just wish there was a
tigh
Dear Brian and Bill,
Thanks for providing this!
Is this (239-element) table sorted? I might suggest "sorted by ID name
within WG", but any sort would be a good thing to provide.
Thanks for making it available,
Spencer
What's the Parking Area? It's the list of all drafts that have been
app
There are a couple of helpful data points for many attendees. In my
own case, knowing there are two North American meetings planned, or
only one, in a given year tells me a lot about budgeting long before a
specific location is announced.
Spencer
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear IESG,
I sent a private "thank you" to Brian replying to his original note,
but wanted to say so in public.
Thank you.
Spencer
From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is precisely because the above concerns can be raised and
examined in this context --and cannot in the context o
It would be OK if someone smart responded to this posting, but until
they show up, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2960.txt is showing
- a 16-bit source and destination port numbers in the common header
(3.1), AND
- a 16-bit stream identifier (3.3.1), AND
- a 32-bit Payload Protocol Identifier (3
The timing on this one was too good to ignore:
URL: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=969926
Title: "At 117 Degrees - No One Escapes the Heat"
I could go for Mexico, but Las Vegas is just so weird!
Thanks,
Spencer
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "shogunx" <[EMAIL
This draft (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation
leadership continuity and next-generation leadership development.
I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition
on
I have been waiting for a proposal like this one (available from
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.txt)
since the SIRS experiment in 2003. But, before I start commenting ...
Would this draft be in scope for Newtrk, or is it IETF Discussion
material?
Thank
I too like this draft and agree that having most IESG members serve
for two terms is ideal and making it more the exception that people
serve for three or four terms. I also like the flexibility it
gives the NOMCOM without creating strict term limits.
When someone is "needed" for more than tw
Hi, Bill,
Thanks for the quick crank through the data - it's pretty interesting,
and especially valuable for discussion of this draft.
Spencer
(p.s. Bill pointed out in a private e-mail that the input dataset he
is using seems to undercount General Area ADs pretty seriously - Fred
Baker sho
Dear John
Just to chime in here...
--On Thursday, 28 July, 2005 15:24 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
...
p.s. We've got something of a tradition of moving people from
the IESG to the IAB and vice versa.
...
Nothing in the proposal would prohibit
Dear Philip and Eliot,
Without going through the full-bore version of this discussion, I have
to say I was discouraged when the best IETF participants could do
(when some unfamiliar person started e-mailing people who had
registered for the the social and asking for more details on credit
car
From RFC 2418 section 1
...
Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than
by
formal representatives of organizations.
It seems like we're being especially casual about saying, "I'm Waldo
from Walden Pond Networks, and ..." or even "I'm giving you the
requirements f
That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)
Spencer
Spencer,
However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to
get here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most
cases). I think its a different issue if I come to the mic and say,
'We at th
I have argued at times (draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel) that our
current structure of 2 area-specific ADs managing a bunch of
WG-specific WG chairs is not optimal.
Yeah, and I wish it hadn't expired ... perhaps we could try again, now
that Harald has some time on his retired-AD hands?
It is
Hi, Philip,
Our mileages probably vary ("welcome to the IETF, variable mileage is
how we know we're here!"), but ...
In the working group chair training, we point out that the most
important thing working group chairs do, and the only responsibility
they can't delegate, is declaration of wor
Well, the one that really pushes my button is when someone, probably
a vendor, but even sometimes an operator, comes to the mic and says
"The Really Big SDO needs this work." Its impossible to know if this
person has any official standing at the Really Big SDO, or if it is
a possition that that
This is EXACTLY my experience, too. I've been able to grab a BUNCH of
people that I needed to talk to, every morning this week so far.
Another really useful feature here in Paris were the tables for sit-
down breakfast.
Result: Productive breakfast meetings.
Gruesse, Carsten
I agree on th
1 - 100 of 607 matches
Mail list logo
