--On tirsdag, september 14, 2004 22:39:25 -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In more practical terms, while I agree that the people who do
the technical work are a necessary condition for the IETF being
meaningful, we certainly have people around who participate in
the IETF, are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Braden) wrote on 13.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have yet to see a coherent argument for keeping the ID series if it's
archived publicly. Why do we need to see the entire process - in public
- of editing and revision? And if we do, why do we need two separate
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
In the report, Scenario C has clearly identified the need for a board
of directors as oversight function for the administrative entity.
Margaret has also pointed out the need for such a function in scenarios
A and B - and multiple people have made the point that
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.
--On tirsdag, september 14, 2004 16:14:42 +0300 Soininen Jonne
(Nokia-NET/Helsinki) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everybody,
I think before proceeding with hiring a person we should have a bit more
discussion on the responsibilities and tasks for the admin director. I
think Carl's proposal is
How about one in Daytona Beach?
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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
Hi Harald,
As you say below, clarity is good. So, before I respond to this
post, I would like to better understand what you are asking...
RFC 3716 includes the following section:
4.3. Who Can Decide
The AdvComm believes that the IETF leadership, acting with the advice
and consent of the
John -
Would it be fair to summarize your note by saying it is a
lightweight scenario A? E.g., simply take one action: hire
an administrative director for the IETF and have that person
live at ISOC. RFPs, budgets, etc... will all flow out of that
initital action and there is no need for a
--On Tuesday, 07 September, 2004 11:35 -0700 Aaron Falk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good
idea. I believe that plenary time is full enough without
crowding it more.
What about a
In my previous response, I think I missed one important implied
questions in your message:
3 - The community has accepted the problem description and
principles laid out in RFC 3716.
I'll interpret this statement as a question:
As a member of the community, do I personally agree with the
--On Wednesday, 15 September, 2004 06:59 -0700 Carl Malamud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John -
Would it be fair to summarize your note by saying it is a
lightweight scenario A? E.g., simply take one action: hire
an administrative director for the IETF and have that person
live at ISOC.
(2) Is it generally understood that the ISOC BoT already
usually meets on Saturday and/or Sunday before the IETF
meetings and that those meetings are open?
Usually yes, but in this particular case, I believe the ISOC Board of
Trustees meeting is Nov 12-13, after the IETF meeting. If we want
--On Wednesday, 15 September, 2004 11:10 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
3) What's an appropriate selection mechanism for that group?
Firstly, I'd say that the IETF and IAB Chairs, and one other
IESG
and IAB member, should be included automatically. I also think
that
John -
Let me try again. I wasn't trying for debating points.
It seems to me that you said that my report covered a lot
of ground that doesn't need to be covered. And, that the
overall focus of the administrative restructuring is
misconceived, trying to solve a set of problems that don't
--On Wednesday, 15 September, 2004 12:04 -0700 Carl Malamud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John -
Let me try again. I wasn't trying for debating points.
It seems to me that you said that my report covered a lot
of ground that doesn't need to be covered. And, that the
overall focus of the
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format '
draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Geographic Location/Privacy Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ted Hardie and Scott
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DHCP Subscriber ID Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option '
draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret
The IETF Secretariat has updated its points of contact list, the list of
active e-mail addresses to be used when requesting information or assistance
from the Secretariat staff. The updated points of contact list is included
on the IETF Secretariat Web page
18 matches
Mail list logo
