Ted,
Ted Hardie wrote:
I believe the text here:
Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment of these
specifications, the DKIM working group will make every reasonable attempt to
keep changes compatible with what is deployed, making incompatible changes only
when they are
Hi Eric,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment
of these specifications, the DKIM working group will make every
reasonable attempt to keep changes compatible with what is
deployed, making incompatible changes only when they are necessary
for the s
Ted Hardie wrote:
At 9:07 AM -0500 12/21/05, Tony Hansen wrote:
I would be happy with the text that was used in the xmpp charter:
Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible changes to the
basis specifications will be acceptable if the working group
determines t
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
I'm comfortable with having a domain's "root public keys" stored in DNS
but allowing the corresponding "root private keys" to sign key
certificates for "individual public keys" that can be included in
DKIM-signed messages. The policies for use of those public keys c
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, January 02, 2006 08:51:20 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't
believe we have ever turned "winning by exhaustion" or "winning
by intimidation" into virtues, even though those techniques are
Actually we have.
It is used with
A different question:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Some additional comments on closer reading and a general comment:
This registry intentionally (if you look at the RPID document) is not
meant to directly extend the RPID schema. I suppose that one could add
that any location types added automa
Bill Fenner wrote:
> On 2/20/08, John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we
>> have a problem?
>
> John,
>
> Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like a very extreme
> response to me. (Unless the expected answer is "A lo
+1 & well said
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
To put it bluntly, I'm not at all in favor of trying to manage news
coverage, especially by organizational mechanisms. Say what you mean,
say it clearly, and publish your own blog/newsletter/whatever if you
need to. Complaints about misconstrued quotes
Just a +1 to the thrust of Paul's suggestion. The I-D does
appear a bit over complex to me,
S.
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 2:20 PM -0400 8/23/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Saturday, 23 August, 2008 14:55 +0200 Frank Ellermann
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> John C Klensin wrote:
>>>
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 12:37 PM -0500 9/25/08, Stephen Nadas wrote:
>> I have read this draft and I support this (imho) very good idea. I don't
>> think there were any comments on -00.
>
> There was a great deal of discussion about this last month when the
> first draft was posted. See (curren
Doug,
Firstly, this draft is not yet in IETF LC, so you've jumped the gun
a bit.
In any case, I believe you had, and took, a number of opportunities
to present your concerns at f2f meetings, on the list and in I-Ds
like the one cited below. However, you did not garner support
for your suggested
SM wrote:
> As there seems to be only one implementation and very little public
> discussion about the draft, I don't see why it should be on the
> Standards Track.
I don't see any pressing need to publish these at all, especially given
the (unfriendly IMO) IPR disclosure and (what I believe) i
So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs,
I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we
need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
the (elegant but not especially useful) crypt
FWIW my overall take on this is in line with Dave's.
I also think EKR and Larry made good points.
Basically, I'll just go with whatever xml2rfc produces
at any given moment.
Lastly, I can't really find the energy to get exercised
by any of this, and wonder if interminable discussions
like this a
+1 to fred's proposal, let the exceptions be just that and don't
bother most I-D authors,
Stephen.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Fred Baker wrote:
You asked me to make this comment publicly, so here it is.
In my opinion, we need a 5378-bis that keeps the good bits but
corrects the issue that h
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> That list could be pre-populated with email addresses from all current IETF
> lists to which the "note well" has been sent.
Seems a bit silly to me. You're opting me in automatically to
some newish, demonstrably broken, IPR stuff? (5378 I mean.)
No thanks if that was your s
Hi,
The IRTF delay tolerant networking RG is meeting a bit
more often than claimed on the official meeting agenda,
thanks to some DARPA folks sponsoring additional room
space, on Thursday and Friday mornings.
The DTNRG meeting agenda, logistics etc. are at [1].
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://ww
Carl Malamud wrote:
This is not a job for a committee-of-the-whole ... I'd be
perfectly happy to let the IAB or IESG pick a religion and let
a working group define the rules of procedure. And, again,
piggybacking on the w3c religion seems like a really easy
way out of this never-ending debate.
Keith Moore wrote:
DKIM as currently described in the I-Ds is a lot more broken than that,
but they're not listening either.
Eh - to be fair, your concerns wrt DKIM haven't been posted to that
list since roughly the Vancouver BoF at which you took an action to
propose some charter text you
Keith Moore wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
DKIM as currently described in the I-Ds is a lot more broken than that,
but they're not listening either.
Eh - to be fair, your concerns wrt DKIM haven't been posted to that
list since roughly the Vancouver BoF at which you took an action to
propose so
Keith Moore wrote:
I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to
decide who is a nutcase and who isn't.
Me too. That'd be a move towards paid membership IMO and as was shown
with the recent NomCom selection, the record keeping involved can
lead to disputes.
If we
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric Allman wrote:
Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as I
can.
Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is
not to continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor
wording issues, and
Isn't IETF childcare the microphone in the big room on
Wed & Thurs evenings?
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Would this be the place to raise the issue of childcare provision at IETF
meetings?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.or
Russ Housley wrote:
Pasi:
2) If this was published in a more academic environment, it would be
proper (and required) to cite related work, tracing the source of
ideas that were not entirely new. We don't usually have extensive
citations in RFCs, but in this context, perhaps it would be
approp
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 05 March, 2007 09:19 -0800 Paul Hoffman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 8:53 AM -0800 3/5/07, Bob Braden wrote:
*> FWIW, I don't think we want to start bouncing specs
because they *> don't pay homage - in this case all the
similarities are probably *>
r_id=765)
that claims to cover the technology. The listed terms are RAND but not
necessarily royalty-free. The IESG rescinded the approval of this
document and sent it back to last call. In the interim, two other IPR
statements have been filed, one by Stephen Farrell on work that he did
and a third
I generally disregard messages that say things like
"we need to..." a bunch of times but never say what
or exactly why.
If there's something you want, can't you say what it
is, so we can see if it makes sense?
S
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
ht
Not that I want to be in this argument, but I was intrigued by the
name-dropping from folks who're not silly...
Ned Freed wrote:
BTW, I suspect you are correct about about the IPv6 transition not being Pareto
efficient at the present time, but IMO the bigger issue is that it is widely
percieved
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:42:06 -0400
> Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I like this document a lot; kudo's to Simon for writing it!
>>
>> My personal opinion is that suggestions for how to write a free
>> standard published as an informational RFC is much more useful than
>> trying to ge
Jari Arkko wrote:
In particular:
If I'm not mistaken, you are the developer, not the set of
end users. In which case your personal preferences are not
relevant.
Their preferences are very relevant, because often they
created these things out of their own needs. They are
very keen on hearing
Dave Crocker wrote:
> pps. As an exercise, this could be interesting, for recruiting IETF
> community participation. A multi-organization, cross-net effort to make
> IPv6 useful will permit cataloguing what works, what doesn't, and what
> is entirely missing. The problems with the current plan ar
Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> While I think the original idea of doing this during a plenary is
>> fine, doing it in the meeting areas on Tuesday evening does sound like
>> a better option. Awarding success with r
Ross Finlayson wrote:
> How easy will it be to commute between the hotel and central Dublin
> (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than the
> hotel)?
You couldn't make lunch in the city centre from citywest. Dinner
should be ok, even if it might take a bit longer than usu
Jari Arkko wrote:
> Dean,
>
>> We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as
>> meeting locations.
>>
>
> Er... like Dallas or San Diego?
>
> I've never been to Dublin and I don't know what exists on site. Maybe
> some locals could tell us?
Actually, I think the hote
Ray Pelletier wrote:
> If you want to see Dublin, and I recommend it, consider arriving 2 - 3
> days early, or staying after the meeting at a hotel downtown near
> Grafton Street and Trinity College. The college even has dorm rooms
> available at very reasonable rates, if you don't mind rough
Hi,
Some area directors do "office hours" where they're available
in case folks want to chat about a discuss or other topic. Sean
and I haven't been doing that to date but have decided to give
it a try this time.
So the SEC ADs will be available in room 202 on Thursday from
1300-1500, if you wan
On 11/13/2012 10:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> http://anewdomain.net/2012/11/10/nasa-dtn-protocol-bp-protocol-vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet-how-it-works-what-legos-have-to-to-with-it/#
>
>> According to NASA's Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group
>> (DTNRG), "the DTN protocol is un
On 11/14/2012 04:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> I've had much better remote
> participation experiences in other conferences than I've had with the IETF.
Can you provide pointers?
Ta,
S.
Hi all,
I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
that's fine, it can die.
The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
be discussed, so
Hi Dave,
On 12/01/2012 10:13 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> On 12/1/2012 1:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> On 12/1/12 11:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> What actual problem is this trying to solve? I see the reference to a
>>> 'reward', but wasn't aware that there is a perceived problem needing
>>>
On 12/01/2012 10:22 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft
>
> I have a serious problem with the premise of the proposal.
>
> The short version is that if the process we're talking about is
> useful, we should not shortcut it as a "reward" for anything.
I dis
On 12/01/2012 11:13 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> On 12/1/2012 2:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> At a minimum, any proposal for change should be expected to justify the
>>> specific problem it is claiming to solve --
>>
>> Disagree. RFC 3933
Hiya,
On 12/01/2012 09:06 PM, SM wrote:
>
> Could you ask an AD to sponsor this draft and generate the Last Call?
Bit early yet. I'd like to know what folks think and hopefully
improve the thing via others' good ideas.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> P.S. Make the draft experimental. Add a one-year
he process. If IETF
> participants, especially those who don't attend meetings and long
> participated remotely or via mailing list, lose faith in the WG process,
> these process change proposals may expedite IETF work, but they may also
> handicap the potential of a proposed standar
lly.
Ta,
S.
>
>Brian
>
> On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> ...
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft
>
>
Hiya,
On 12/02/2012 12:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> > I, and I believe lots of us, do want to encourage running code
>> > more than now. This is one attempt to help with that. Why not
>> > try it and see?
> Because as a "reward" for claiming to have running code, I think it's
> a terrible idea.
On 12/01/2012 11:51 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/1/12 2:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> My reluctance to get into this is based on an opinion that process
>> change proposals with more words attached tend to just not happen,
>> so fewer words is better.
>
> I thi
Hi Stewart,
On 12/03/2012 08:06 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
>> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
t; and
>> "internationalization", but only found the former, and not not in a
>> discussion about how this proposal would make sure that cross-concerns
>> are adequately addressed.
>>
>> Regards, Martin.
>>
>> On 2012/12/02 5:12, Stephen Farre
Hi John,
On 12/03/2012 12:29 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, December 03, 2012 11:28 +0000 Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>>> Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy
>>> specifications is a Bad Thing.
>>
>> Sure. I gue
On 12/03/2012 02:25 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Running code, when it's an organic part of the document development,
> is undoubtedly a good thing -- it doesn't make everything right, but,
> yes, it does do *some* spec validation and probably does help spec
> quality.
Fully agree. And this kind of
On 12/03/2012 02:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I'd really prefer if we'd talk about open source being desirable, but
> not having it be necessary.
Yep. I got another comment to that effect as well.
I'll try address that (but that's not done yet).
FWIW, a working copy is available [1] that has a
b
On 12/03/2012 04:21 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell writes:
>
> Stephen> On 12/03/2012 02:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> I'd really prefer if we'd talk about open source being desirable,
> >
On 12/03/2012 04:41 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be considered
> as part of this experiment (free software and open source are not synonymous).
> Using the acronym FOSS and defining it as Free or Open Source Software in the
> doc
Hi Jari,
I agree with almost all of what you say. I think we only disagree
in two places, and perhaps more about tactics than anything else.
The first is whether or not its worthwhile addressing the specific
bit of process my draft tackles. I obviously do think it is, even
though you correctly n
On 12/03/2012 10:50 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>
>
>> I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be considered
>> as part of this experiment (free software and open source are not
>> synonymous).
>> Using the acronym FOS
Hiya,
This proposal only kicks in (as an option) after the WG have
done their job, however they choose to do that (within the
IETF process).
Later on, it might be a fine idea to try extend the fast-track
concept so that a WG has a structured way do similar things
but IMO that'd be better done af
Hi Ted,
On 12/05/2012 05:22 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Reading through Stephen's draft and the discussion to date, I think there
> is some confusion/disagreement about what it is having an implementation
> at this stage signals.
>
> One way to break up the work of the IETF is:
>
> Engineering--mak
Hi Ted,
Thanks that change looks good to me. I'll whack it in thanks. I do
still like the word "reward" though so I'll tag that on too:-)
Cheers,
S.
On 12/05/2012 07:36 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Some further comments in-line.
>
> On Wed, Dec
Hi Yaron,
I'm glad to see more discussion of this general topic.
On 12/12/2012 07:31 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to Stephen's
> "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document, in a
> semi-standard way, whatever imple
Hiya,
On 12/14/2012 11:09 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've been trying to say out of this because I think most of the
> suggestions are better carried out by AD-encouraged experiments
> and reports to the rest of us on effectiveness rather than by
> long discussions in the community abou
John, Keith,
I really have to say that you both seem to be talking about
things that have nothing whatsoever to do with my proposal.
ISTM that you are of the opinion that anything the IETF
does to go faster is bad in and of itself because its
scary. This also seems to me to be an example of the
Hiya,
On 12/16/2012 10:27 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 04:49 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> ISTM that you are of the opinion that anything the IETF
>> does to go faster is bad in and of itself because its
>> scary.
> It's not that simple, at least in my opi
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 07:33 PM, SM wrote:
> At 07:14 11-01-2013, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
>>as Experimental RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 09:02 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for replying to this "advise to secretariat" thread and not to the
> ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce.
> I have three comments, and regret that I have not followed all of the
> discussions regarding this
if that's wrong.
Cheers,
S.
On 01/11/2013 09:34 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> At 12:36 11-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> You mean rough consensus of the IETF I guess? Good question.
>
> No, I mean consensus as that's also part what is gauged during a Last Call.
Hiya,
On 01/14/2013 07:50 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>
...
> I understand that this is a rant. And, I'm not ranting back, even if
> tempted.
...
Yes, its tempting, but I'm going to resist since its irrelevant IMO.
...
>>
>> I'm not at all sure what concrete suggestion you're making, other
Hi Bernard,
I'm sorry, I have no idea what it is that you agree with.
Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
S.
On 01/12/2013 10:47 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> +1
>
> [IAB Chair hat off].
>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:25:38 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC
>> with Running Cod
>As a background, I'm a long-time believer in "rough consensus" for
> Proposed Standard and "running code" for advancement along the
> standards track. I do not believe the two mix well.
>
>A standard needs to be as simple as possible (but no s
f the goal were that all PS
RFCs would be processed this way. That's not the goal and
that's stated in the draft.
>A standard needs to be as simple as possible (but no simpler);
> running code needs to be complex.
>
>Stephen Farrell wants to "speed up" our proce
Hi Olafur,
On 01/14/2013 04:39 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 10:14, The IESG wrote:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
>> consider the following document: - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with
>> Running Code' as Experimental RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans
Hi Hector,
On 01/14/2013 05:05 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> I have two concerns and comments:
>
> - How will success or failure be measured? Number of appeal increases
> or lesser amount? I have a concern that once this door is open, there
> will be increase appeals and also apathy of outcomes.
t; deserve a better community understanding...
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> ...
>> Well WGLC isn't part of 2026, and others have argued that that means
>> that there's no need for this to even be a process-experiment...
>
>I think the Narrative Minutes s
Hi Martin,
On 01/14/2013 08:32 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> John Leslie wrote:
>>
>>I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
>> sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
>> idea to me.
>>
>>As a background, I'm a long-time believer in "rough consen
Hi Olafur,
Thanks for the offer of text. Looking forward to getting that.
Just on this one though...
On 01/14/2013 10:29 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> That's also sort of like the point Stefan W. raised. And he
>> suggested:
>>
>> "If the source code has been developed
>>
Martin,
On 01/15/2013 02:10 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> John Leslie wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> But more to the point, I think that in a lot of cases where
>>> the IETF has done a good job, there has been running code
>>> before the WG even started...
>>
>>This perhaps explains where Stephen is coming
Hi Brian,
On 01/15/2013 10:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On balance I think this experiment is safe to carry out, and therefore
> probably should be carried out. There are a few comments below.
>
> However, I would urge the IESG to update the page at
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/process-experi
Hiya,
On 01/15/2013 11:49 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I hate it when we end up legislating for common sense, so I
> agree that for the experiment, this point could be put in the
> wiki.
Great. I'm accumulating stuff like that in the "changes"
section (9.1) of the working version [1] for now,
Hi Ned,
at the end...
On 01/15/2013 10:31 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> Martin Rex wrote:
>
>> John Leslie wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
>>> sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
>>> idea to me.
>>>
>>>
Hi Ned,
On 01/16/2013 03:40 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Actually I think you make a couple of great points that ought be
>> mentioned in the draft about implementability. (No chance you'd
>> have time to craft a paragraph? If not, I'll try pinch text from
>> above:-) Now that you point it out like th
Hi Joe,
On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> Hi Alexa,
>>
>> Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week
>> IETF last
>> call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under
>> the rules
>> o
On 01/22/2013 05:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/2013 9:00 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> ...
>>> This is a silly idea.
>>
>> So you're in two minds about it eh:-)
Hiya,
On 01/22/2013 05:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> It puts more work on the community at large to review an idea that could
> have been either rejected or significantly improved in a smaller
> community before wasting the larger communities time.
Actually it occurs to me that there might be som
Hi Thomas,
On 01/22/2013 09:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really
> change my mind.
Ah well. I'm willing to keep trying:-)
> This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the
> trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don
Hi John,
Bits and pieces below...
On 01/22/2013 07:04 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>
>>> The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take specific
>>> actions under certain circumstances in corner cases of the experiment
Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:
- what's proposed is an experiment, it'd likely get tried out
a few times and won't consume any huge resource anywhere
- its optional, WG chairs that want to try it could, those
that don't can just
On 01/25/2013 03:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> In the context of draft-farrell-ft, the above makes the idea of
> WG LC in parallel with IETF LC either irrelevant or bad news.
> If the WG Chair (or AD) concludes that a WG LC is needed, then
> the procedure should not be invoked. If a WG LC is no
Hiya,
On 01/25/2013 04:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> If I correctly understand the above, it lies at the root of the
> problem I was trying to describe. This is really an experiment
> if the effect of deciding we didn't want to make it permanent
> was that we were at status quo ante, i.e., as i
Hi Martin,
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
> one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).
I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
relevant when consid
On 01/27/2013 11:19 AM, t.p. wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Farrell"
> To:
> Cc: "John C Klensin" ; "Thomas Narten"
> ; ;
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:47 PM
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 01/25/
On 01/28/2013 04:27 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> About the idea of an "experiment":
Right. The context being its an RFC 3933 IETF process
experiment.
>
> On 1/25/2013 5:07 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Responses to some points below but I'd really like to as
Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is dead-i
Hiya,
On 01/29/2013 05:49 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> At 01:59 29-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
>> where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
>> the discussion, I'm going to con
On 03/02/2013 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> From my perspective, an important technical challenge in coming years might
> be a variation on delay-tolerant networking. We have done a fair bit of work
> in this area, for some definition of "we" - SOAP, Saratoga, and the NASA/JPL
> DTNrg w
On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
>
> I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been
selecte
On 03/07/2013 09:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Oh, and one more data point:
>
> The Internet-Draft archive also functions as a timestamped signed public
> archival record of our "inventions".
> (Which are often trivial, but triviality won't stop patenting of copycats,
> while a good priority
On 03/23/2013 02:22 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Sorry, Martin, but you're not describing how the IETF actually
> works.
>
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not com
Hi Lloyd,
On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D
> recommending how to write acks, I get acked...)
Thanks! Yours is the first useful thing anyone's said in this
thread that I recall. (Most previous mails made me
On 04/13/2013 01:09 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> gender bias
...
> "western white guys".
It may be that the latter phrase is a common term in
north America, (I dunno) but fwiw it grates on me at
least.
If the issue we're talking about relates to gender,
then I think sticking to that is better and fi
On 13 Apr 2013, at 18:05, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Maybe what we do is ask some of the large network companies to fund a few
> research fellowships on topics that might be of interest to the IETF in the
> 3-5 year time frame for post-doc types?
They actually do that already. More of would be
1 - 100 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
