In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified,
>> publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D
Let me take this opportunity to say that Apple, too, strongly supports
3066bis.
Deborah Goldsmith
Internationalization, Unicode liaison
Apple Computer, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 10, 2005, at 3:33 AM, Misha Wolf wrote:
I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you
mean
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 21:29 + Misha Wolf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> vs> unless the incredible "I'm gona tell the Liason on you"
> vs> threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
> vs> as usual that it sounded like.
>
> That appears to be a
At 19:06 10/01/2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for
adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be
demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
And the point I'm trying to make is that ther
> From: Misha Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> vs> unless the incredible "I'm gona tell the Liason on you"
> vs> threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
> vs> as usual that it sounded like.
>
> That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my:
>
> mw> Now the IETF is, of course, free
In principle, the process for moving in stages from I-D to Full Standard
is a good one, but only for those who know and respect the different
categories. Increasingly, I get the impression that those not au fait
with the workings of the IETF see an I-D as a considered piece of work,
to be referenc
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find
> it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working
> towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to
> raise it even further. Why
unsubscribe
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:15:46 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the
> usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual
> submissions.
Actually, i was not intending to indicate such a relationship, nor do i believ
Vernon Schryver wrote:
vs> unless the incredible "I'm gona tell the Liason on you"
vs> threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing
vs> as usual that it sounded like.
That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my:
mw> Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes,
mw
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 14:07 -0500 Leslie Daigle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the
> IAOC, and not "folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC
> members". (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be
> an ISOC member...).
>
> That s
--On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
M
My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to
do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that
were better done earlier.
I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF maul
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> [...] The whole "community consensus"
> thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word
> "standard." [...]
I would like to recall that new documents enter the "standards-track"
as Proposed Standards and there
> "Tom" == Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> I believe any individual submission should have a publicly
Tom> identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed
Tom> in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues,
Tom> hopefully resolve them, before last
On 1/10/2005 14:41, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
Hmm...
No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for
publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules
should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the
teleconference bill for xxx)
M
My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to
do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that
were better done earlier.
I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian
slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but may
> From: Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records.
> When we have
>a mailing list like "ietf-types" or "ietf-languages" where there is a long term
> community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there
> be taken into
Hmm...
No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for
publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules
should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the
teleconference bill for xxx), but the IAOC can also establish rules for
non-exce
Apologies for the bad parse.
When I said "non-ISOC member", I intended to say "the members of IAOC who
are not representing ISOC", not "not a member of ISOC".
Having the ISOC President have a formal role in representing the IETF when
discussing how to dissolve the relationship between ISOC and t
John,
I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the
IAOC, and not "folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC
members". (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be
an ISOC member...).
That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposal.
I don't want to belabour it, because I don't want to
g
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support
for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support
be demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
d/
And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records.
When we ha
Hi.
In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and
moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to)
debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions:
(1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar
standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly,
Specific suggestion for text changes from harald
Reserves
Section 2.2 bullet 7, current:
8. The IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover
normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with
prudent plann
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 16:31 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual
> property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools
> shall also
> transition to the new entity. Other terms of remov
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:32 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
> s much as we might like the handy "default yes"/"default no"
> terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the
> standards track have varying levels of support and interest
> when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Def
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:33:54 GMT, Misha Wolf said:
> I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you
> mean by "much support". There have been at least as many individuals
> writing mails in favour of the document as against it. Furthermore,
> it has been made clear tha
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The IASA model of finances, as presented in the BCP, is this one:
Money comes from a number of places, which can be grouped roughly as:
(snip)
Similarly, the money goes to just a few places
X - Money spent in support of the IETF
Y - Money left by the end of the year (
We have had a number of issues that circle around the financial model for
the IASA. Some of these have been fairly nitpick-level, others have been
more matters of principle, others are really hard to tell.
In order to get the discussion to a place where we can reach some
conclusions, it might b
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
OK, I have use this text (as 2 paragraphs) from Haralds email
below
Bert
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:41
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: V2 Consensus? #770 Compensation for I
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald suggets:
so I'll switch to proposing
that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns
at the end of section 4.0:
-
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation fo
Harald suggets:
so I'll switch to proposing
that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns
at the end of section 4.0:
-
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as
Dave Crocker wrote:
> And, indeed, I haven't seen much support for the document under
discussion.
I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you
mean by "much support". There have been at least as many individuals
writing mails in favour of the document as against it.
--On 7. januar 2005 13:43 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from
your list are curious:
1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes
*after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a work
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 generally be for exceptional cases only.
at
I still see no real disagreement in content on the question of
reimbursement, but the point has been made that the IAOC needs to set those
rules in advance of the question being raised, so I'll switch to proposing
that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns
at the
My intention was to say that the IAOC sets the rules as soon as it gets
around to it, and certainly before any expense is covered - even if the
rule is as simple as "no payment, ever", it should be set.
So I also prefer Mike's wording to mine.
(Another thing - I have recommended to the transitio
37 matches
Mail list logo
