s to watch. But
I do believe there are some tractable pieces here we can pull
off of the problem and solve, and I believe the working group
is committed to that task, no matter who proposes the solution.
regards,
uld also read the trade press,
just in case you would like a different view.
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ea; so should Hadmut Danisch, for the same reason.
The main point to be made, though, is that these are all contributions to
the IETF's collective work on the problem, and should be seen as such.
regards,
terms, does this look like one
area or two? To me, two. I recognize that there is an increased
overhead in keeping two organizations going, but I think the
benefit in focus is worth it.
Just two cents from an IETF participant,
regards,
eal jobs. ISOC has a job in education, outreach,
policy making, and standards. Adding "keeping the chips up"
for critical computer systems, meeting planning, and the related
support systems does not make sense. The jobs just aren't
congruent enough to support the connection
in for RT tickets.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
policy, or educational realms. I just don't see the need
to yoke these two horses together; to me, they do or may need to
pull in different directions.
Speaking personally,
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
e
goal unless we are very sure that the staged transition
has other benefits.
Just two cents from an IETF participant,
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again, inline.
At 12:36 PM -0700 9/27/04, Tony Hain wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
> ...
>There is nothing explicitly proposed in C, but run the thought experiment
of
>what would happen if a major contributor to the administrative entity
>threatened to pull funding if X didn
fundamental approach speaks strongly to the consensus of the group on
the work. It was one symptom, though, among many. It was not
the cause of the working group's closure.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
we can.
Again, speaking only for myself,
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ts
other constituents hear them and know whether or not to agree. But
not talking about the money flow here when we're making an organizational
change of this magnitude would border on negligence.
Speaking personally,
Ted Hardie
At 6:40 PM -0500 11/18/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Ted,
At 2:45 PM -0800 11/18/04, Ted Hardie wrote:
That's something
that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after
all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting
fees or memberships. E
ey are independent but closely related and
that ISOC is taking on a custodial role for the administrative function.
But this is not exactly something we can hang a document on; we need
to spell out what we expect to happen. If we don't do that,
we've just handed the headache on. That's not wh
ng the specifics
right is an activity we should expect to revisit, not just once
but over time.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
get. That makes sense to me, given
what we're doing.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 4:58 PM -0500 12/21/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
> So... why is it an issue when I suggest it?
nothing special for you Bert :-)
But does your text not boil down to the same process?
it might or it might mean that a big pool of money is maintained
whatever - the bottom line is that the IASA needes
petence
of the draft's authors. Working groups tend to have broader sets
of competence than individual authors or design teams, but it is
this same benefit that we seek with each Last Call.
regards,
Ted Hardie
__
tions on how to highlight this
to the community reviewing a document at Last Call are more than
welcome.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The last call on this draft has ended. I appreciate all of the
technical comments raised in response to this draft. The
IESG will work with the authors to resolve those issues
and determine the next steps.
regards,
Ted Hardie
Hi Harald,
One comment to this, inline.
At 8:42 PM +0100 1/13/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian)
that text needed to be added of the form:
"This
At 9:59 AM +0100 1/14/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I couldn't find an example of a resolution that accepts an IETF
procedure BCP without such a clause, but I probably missed it... an
amendment to the BCP that says " and has been affirmed by a
resolution of the ISOC Board of Trustees th
the IETF community both now and in the
future can read and understand. I believe the right thing to do
in that case is to use the general term (accounts), with specific
references to general ledger accounts or Cost Center accounting
as explanatory text on how the ISOC may implement this.
and-waiving here and now can result in
lots of wind later on.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion
in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or
are we all just unsure what to say about
st not using the
term "control" here unless there is an extraordinarily strong reason to do so.
This activity is controlled by the IETF in partnership with ISOC, through
the offices of the IAOC. If there are other terms available that do
not muddy those waters, I would strongly prefer t
sking
Skadden&Arps to reply to your note. But let me interject...
At 09:56 AM 02/09/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
Some comments, using Harald's diff as a starting point.
ISOC has proposed this:
This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) as a
At 11:15 AM -0500 2/11/05, Leslie Daigle wrote:
So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because
the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right
answer is to just *drop* that clause.
"This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (I
iesg@ietf.org will get the IESG; the iesg-secretary address goes
to a ticket system (RT). The replies you're seeing are from that
ticket system. From what's below, it sounds like the ticket system
may be borking on some part of the multipart, but I can't be sure without the
full message. Can yo
documented in an RFC like 2219? Same set of core assumptions/built
from the same tools? Something less? Something more? Something along
a different axis entirely?
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
at thinking in terms of functional
differentiation can help us identify the right targets.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ore of a match to where we should be,
I recognize that it increases the risks and costs to early adopters
and may slow
things at that end of the flow. But it seems like that approach is a
better match
in the long term.
Just my opinion,
regards,
though, remains: important to the IETF does
not mean "needs to pass through the IESG".
regards,
Ted Hardie
PS. I almost got through the whole email without saying
"functional differentiation".
__
regards,
Ted Hardie
At 1:18 AM +0200 6/14/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hi, found in
<http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The IESG intends to forward the SPF draft, along with the
Sender-ID drafts to the RFC Editor as Experimental RFCs.
The SPF draft says
At 9:54 AM +0300 7/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was wondering if someone could help me out on this one. I was doing a bit
>of analysis on the current RFC list, and noticed that some Draft Standard
>documents are obsoleted. For example:
>
> 954 NICNAME/WHOIS. K. Harrenstien, M.K. Stah
xisting system. I strongly support the need for change, and
I believe that to achieve the appropriate community involvement this is
required.
regards,
Ted Hardie
At 11:21 AM -0400 9/16/05, IETF Chair wrote:
>There has been quite a bit o
t time to replace it, then move on. That will require
a lot of work from the Area Director, the WG Chair, and the community, but it is
still the right answer.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
support for is fine. I'm deeply concerned, however, about it
doing the development work itself, as a process in which selected volunteers
replace
the public work of those who will use the outcome.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_
better formulate the
>differences instead of (or at least before) posting something
>incoherent, but, in the meantime...
>
>--On Friday, 16 September, 2005 16:45 -0700 Ted Hardie
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At 2:28 PM -0700 9/16/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>
reas, and as such there can be no neat mathematical boundaries
>delineating SAI's work from the rest of the IETF. The new area will
>allow an existing community within the IETF to solidify its vision and
>to benefit from increased institutional support.
This is just my personal reformulation, by the way, with no hats on.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
level of
>organizational maturity.
I note that "death" is one of the levels of maturity for any
entity. Progress on some fronts is not always to be desired.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
I
document seems like a reasonable way to accomplish this, but
doing so in the standards-track specifications also seems reasonable.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https:
tell the IETF what, if anything, is wrong with the bits the IETF had
already
done. "Doesn't fit, here's why" would be one answer, and there are several
logical places to do it.I think that's pretty actionable, and that it would
be a
useful, timely contrib
t" is relevant
to the
people who will read and use the specifications. It's relevant to the IETF, in
other
words, as well as a broader community.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf
than either place I earlier suggested.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>>> Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment
>>>> of these specifications, the DK
At 9:02 AM -0500 1/6/06, Sandy Wills wrote:
>When you got married, did you want every person in the audience to stand up
>and say "I'm okay with this marriage!"? No, you wanted the entire room
>silent, so that you could hear any objection.
Hi,
This is a digression. Hit delete now unle
exclusively based on Unicode properties but is
>organized as tables and categories for readability.
>
>Goals and milestones:
These milestones are either completely impractical or
indicate strong confidence on the part of the IESG that
very minimal work will be needed to transform the input
At 5:05 PM -0800 3/4/08, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>Unicode experts have been participating in the work already, so this
>is even closer cooperation than having a liaison. If there turns out
>to be a need for a liaison, can IAB/liaisons/ADs/chairs do lazy
>evaluation then on whether the IETF liaison
mbo, things are even worse.
The current document is here:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html
for those readers playing the home game.
Ted Hardie
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https
cument not to
have flexibility. There are strong reasons to make this a community
agreed document. Making it something that the community
can hold the IESG to, rather than something the IESG can modify
by issuing an updated ION, is a critical part of this.
Ted Hardie
he community, I am interested to know
why.
Ted Hardie
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
a community document rather than a statement of the body
which may hold discusses. Only the latter allows the community
to hold the IESG accountable adequately.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Lakshmi
is view seems to relegate the document shepherd's
role to "invisible friend", something I would press further on if
Sam were not so immanently leaving the IESG.
Ted Hardie
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
hat aren't really salient, and open significant new ones,
all without having paid much attention to all of the text and effort that
flowed in the attempt to get early discussion of this.
To quote ekr, "Outstanding!"
Ted Hardie
umble servant,
Ted Hardie
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 6:38 AM -0700 3/9/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Dave> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
>
>
>Dave> How?
>
>You can update an IESG statement mor easily than a BCP. As yo
At 1:42 PM -0800 3/8/08, Russ Housley wrote:
>I think you completely misunderstand my point. A reviewer can make a
>comment, and the authors or WG can say that they disagree. This is
>important for an AD to see. The AD now needs to figure out whether
>the reviewer is in the rough part of the rou
earlier than
Last Call (which is the opportunity I think you're missing).
Ted Hardie
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 8:16 AM -0700 3/28/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>"Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
>> worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
>> becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anyt
At 12:11 PM -0700 3/30/08, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
>licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
>If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z"
>then we have at least two problems. We wo
>
> > I agree with Joel. We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that
>> cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses
>> or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at
>> all. Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses
>> or,
ut I believe they are the right ones
for this URI parameter registry.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I have resisted contributing to this thread because so many of the salient
points had already been made. But permit me to make a small observation.
This proposal has a general thrust that seems to say "This position is
important, and
we don't want to pile too much power in one pair of hands, so
At 3:04 PM -0700 5/29/08, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>Hi Folks,
> We have written a draft describing some guidelines for authors and
>reviewers of internet drafts. We would really appreciate it if you can
>spend some time to go over it and provide comments and/or suggestions
>for improvement.
>
>Than
should be the
>document that sets the various pieces in context, but I am open to
>suggestions on how to go about fitting this document into a broader
>context.
I have obviously not been clear here either, so permit this bluntness:
as it stands now,this document is harmful. It fails to pl
stage, you should be satisfied with a "considered; choice made"
and nothing else; anything else puts the power for determining the shape of
the document in the hands of those doing the review instead of doing the work.
That's wrong, that's dangerous, and any document that seems
At 5:12 PM -0700 5/30/08, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >
>> These both sound like excellent reviews: you expressed your personal
>> design preferences in the first instance but did not try to force it over
>> the consensus of the working group, and pointed out a showstopper
>> in the second.
>>
>> Now
At 10:55 AM -0700 6/3/08, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>***START OF TEXT
>4.2 Recipients of the review
>
>The list of recipients of the review is tricky to get right. The main
>idea is to make sure all the relevant people receive the review. The
>
ting you an appeal. The next step could
well be reformation.
I hope the IESG considers John's appeal in this light
and responds promptly to the issues he has raised.
Ted Hardie
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 1:32 PM -0700 6/19/08, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>Isn't the IESG is meant to serve two roles? The first is to be the
>arbiter of community consensus. The second is to be a judge on the
>quality of the work before them, as to whether it is ready to move
>forward.
The IESG is not meant to over-ride t
>
>The problems with the Discussing AD proposing text are more in the area
>of scalability. I prefer seeing the authors (or shepherds) be active and
>propose ways to resolve an issue. Or at least the initial proposal,
>review and suggestions from both sides may be needed to converge.
This is not t
At 9:25 AM -0700 7/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > However, many concepts in modern Chinese
>dialects require multiple syllables to express them and
>therefore multiple characters to write them. So there isn't
>really a one to one mapping of word, syllable, concept as
>many people suppose.
Whil
At 2:03 PM -0700 7/9/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>I propose
>the following as alternative text:
A nit with this:
>"6. Addresses used in I-Ds SHOULD use fully qualified
>domain names (FQDNs) instead of literal IP addresses.
>Working Groups or authors seeing exemptions from
At 6:04 PM -0700 8/7/08, Tim Bray wrote:
>Well, it's not as if the presence of the "http:" scheme requires you
>to use the protocol, and in fact a very high proportion of all
>accesses to such resources go sideways through various caching schemes
>and so on. The notion that the scheme implies the
At 3:21 AM -0700 8/13/08, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
>
>John Klensin has proposed new text, whcih was amended by
>Ted Hardie and the resulting text (if I understood it correctly) is:
>
>
> "6. Addresses used in I-Ds SHOULD use fully qualified
>domain names
yone will
>copy/paste it. I suspect that those that wouldn't aren't likely to be
>significantly deterred by a license statement.
This sounds reasonable to me; thanks for the suggestion.
regards,
Ted Hardie
arious places, I believe this needs to be said.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>If an patent disclosure is related to
>a draft someone submits, and the draft expires and the disclosure is
>removed, someone else can pick up the draft and submit a new ve
>The problem is that there is no time limit on when the I-D can become an
>IETF standard. Someone can pick up a 5 year old I-D and do the work
>involved in getting it standardized; I believe our process allows for
>that.
They pretty much have to write a new I-D though, and, unless it the
same aut
>
>For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think
>it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we
>know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired
>WG document years later doesn't seem entirely unlikely.
AVT's chair just stepped
At 4:52 AM -0700 9/19/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>No, no, Lawrence was talking about the new rules that treat separately
>code and text in a RFC. (Many RFC have code and, under the current
>rule, you cannot, in theory, extract it and reuse it in free software.)
I think I understand what you
the net should
connect.
Speaking only for myself,
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 10:13 AM -0700 9/25/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
>The proposed IETF IPR policy allows the public to modify the code present in
>IETF specifications but not to use that same specification to create
>modified text to document that modified code! Does anyone here honestly
>believe this is justifi
ndle questions related to configuration in the presence
of mobility, I would prefer a statement that made explicit.
Thanks for listening,
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 6:10 AM -0700 10/6/08, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> On Monday 06 October 2008 15:31:07 ext Julian Reschke, you wrote:
>>> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs
>>> to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?
>>
>> As f
r stress on the working group machinery.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
m to, but the change should go forward *whether
this draft is standardized or not*. It's important for the interoperable
understanding
of the DNS namespace for this to occur (or one of the related methods, like
using
a class other than IN to occur).
At 11:04 AM -0800 11/13/08, Matthias Leisi wrote:
>The suggestion to use a dedicated RRTYPE is nice, but many others have
>failed in this endeavour before.
>
>-- Matthias
What do you mean "failed in this endeavour"? failed to get an RR
assigned, or failed in deployment?
At 11:23 AM -0800 11/13/08, Tony Finch wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer. I had missed this technical comment in the
>> crowd, and I think it is very important indeed. By re-using RRs with
>> context-specific semantics, the pr
At 12:08 PM -0800 11/13/08, Ted Hardie wrote:
> The other A records have
>a specific meaning in which the data returned indicates that indicates
>something about
>its reputation in a specific context (what reputation etc. being context
>specific). One
>of these things is
The real damage might well occur when it leaks
out of DNSBLs into the next bright spark for web-based reputation
or something similar.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>Regards,
>John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>Dummies"
of the DNS, the TTL, in a subtly different way). Many users
may not want to interpret this data, obviously, as they want the simplest check
possible so that run-time processing is possible. But it is trivially easy
to re-conflate.
regar
s. But it shouldn't go onto the standards track, as there is a known
technical deficiency.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 5:20 AM -0800 11/22/08, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>*) Even if it should be understood that vendors make their own decisions
>independently of the IETF, some of the similar application implications
>may exist due to other reasons such as firewalls, etc.
The warts due to firewalls are very different f
At 6:07 PM -0800 11/25/08, David Conrad wrote:
>Tony,
>
>On Nov 25, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>> Either way the
>> app developers will have to rely on topology awareness crutches to
>> deal with
>> the resulting nonsense.
>
>Stuff they presumably already have to deal with because they'd l
nsport protocols, so that the best path gets
selected", or "run all available transports from all available flow
endpoints for as long as the flow lasts".
Care to clarify?
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ork in new drafts now.
Just my two cents, untarnished by law degrees or other
impediments.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 12:34 PM -0800 1/9/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>Ted Hardie asked me:
>> Are you willing to personally indemnify the individuals who are later
>> sued by those who don't hold this view or are you willing to pay for
>> the appropriate insurance cover?
>
>Of cour
A statement by the IESG on whether it believes that mailing list maintainer
actions under 3683 are subject to appeal would be welcome (as would
an overhaul of 3683 in general).
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
discussed so far). And, as usual, any resolution
discussed
at an interim meeting must be confirmed on the relevant mailing list.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www
I will be out of the office until June 4th. It is possible that I will have
intermittent connectivity, but please do not count on immediate replies.
If this is an urgent IESG/AD matter, please contact my co-AD, Lisa Dusseault,
at lisa at osafoundation.org.
Thanks,
Ted Hardie
1 - 100 of 309 matches
Mail list logo
