Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> FYI, I have just set up chatrooms at ietf.xmpp.org for all the BOFs
> which are currently listed on the IETF 62 agenda page:
Peter-
Many thanks! Can you confirm that users will be able to set the
"Subject:" in the chatrooms? On teleconferences I've found that very
use
FYI, I have just set up chatrooms at ietf.xmpp.org for all the BOFs
which are currently listed on the IETF 62 agenda page:
6LOWPAN
AUTOCONF
BTNS
CALSIFY
ICOS
NTP
SHIM6
SLRRP
TC
TRILL
Also, I've created rooms for existing WGs whose chatrooms had never been
created (HIP, MIPSHOP, BFD, and ECRIT).
On Wednesday, March 02, 2005 06:51:59 PM -0500 Keith Moore
wrote:
Which way of
keeping the status should the Tools team use in the requirements for
the tools it is specifying?
"2. Metadata kept separately"
Good grief. You managed to say basically the same things as me, but more
clearly and in
On Wednesday, March 02, 2005 06:39:24 PM -0500 stanislav shalunov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Context: The IETF Tools team works on requirements for various
automated tools for the IETF. Many of the tools have to deal with
internet-drafts; in these cases, the information whether an
internet-draf
> For
> example, I don't know how many times I gave essentially the same
> lecture to people who wanted so very much to believe that domains
> registered in .country were actually IN that country.
ah, a very good example. it's like saying that a car with a license
plate from is IN that state or
> Which way of
> keeping the status should the Tools team use in the requirements for
> the tools it is specifying?
"2. Metadata kept separately"
a) it's often desirable and occasionally necessary to allow drafts to
change from individual to wg and vice versa (or for that matter from one
wg to an
Context: The IETF Tools team works on requirements for various
automated tools for the IETF. Many of the tools have to deal with
internet-drafts; in these cases, the information whether an
internet-draft is a working group draft or a personal draft is
important. The mechanism by which such inform
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:49:17PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish
> >
> > What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names
> > draft-iab-dns-assumptions-02
> >
> > as an Informational RFC. [...]
> i think this doc
One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting writing
drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents
appropriately. This could be a pointer to the xml2rfc information (with
associated RFC), to tools for nroff, etc., but it would be very helpful to
tell po
> Date: 2005-02-22 08:35
> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been preoccupied with
other matters.
> The observation that a number of
> implementers and ISPs/mail service vendors have chosen to adopt
> the "Submit" model speaks far more loudly than
> I haven't gone through all of the e-mails,
> but at least I'd like to register an opinion.
>
> I think the cut-off policies need to be changed.
>
> Here are some reasons:
> - There are many revisions of working-group drafts
> posted to private websites after the cutoff
> - I have had drafts m
> Date: 2005-03-02 09:49
> From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish
> >
> > Â Â Â Â Â What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â draft-iab-dns-assumptions-02
> >
> > as an Informational RFC. ÂThis document rev
> Date: 2005-03-02 07:59
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bruce,
>
> Â> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> Â> I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
>
> At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more
> flexibility in operationa
At this point, less than one week before the meeting, only 14 WGs (not
counting BOFs) have agendas posted. I'm at a loss for a suitable adjective.
You might start by asking the secretariat why all the agendas which have
been submitted haven't been posted... I know of two working groups which
h
Hello folks,
I haven't gone through all of the e-mails,
but at least I'd like to register an opinion.
I think the cut-off policies need to be changed.
Here are some reasons:
- There are many revisions of working-group drafts
posted to private websites after the cutoff
- I have had drafts miss
> i think this document is just silly. and highly subjective. there is
> no way to edit it to correct its problems -- it should just quietly
> die. IAB should preserve its relevance and integrity by limiting its
> focus to objective technical matters (such as the excellent work on
> wildcards bac
Hi, maybe some typos or cases of DEnglish on my side:
| A draft which identifier (a.k.a. filename) is known and
| starts with "draft-ietf-".
s/which identifier/identifier which/ or s/which/whose/ (?)
| documents, Secretariat does not accept
s/, Secretariat/, the secretariat/ AFAIK there is or
> Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a contract
> for what the working group will work on / develop.
yup. in fact, the language you use is commonly used to describe the charter
and to justify being so forceful in making it clear and plausible.
> When a working
The IESG Secretary announced, via the IETF-Announce list:
> The IESG has received a request from the TOOLS team to consider the
> following document:
>
> - 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset '
> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
The good news:
Last December Minneapolis started a Light Rail Service between
downtown and Mall of America with a stop at the airport.
The ride costs $1.25 each way and the trains seem to be running
every 10 minutes during the weekend and more frequently during the week.
The bad news:
The closest s
back from the grave?)
Cc: Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well, it is a mess. I couldn't even start making a wg schedule, as my wg
wasn't scheduled until yesterday. I even sent my reuest for a
> The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish
>
> What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names
> draft-iab-dns-assumptions-02
>
> as an Informational RFC. This document reviews the potential
> assumptions that may be made based on domain names, as wel
On 2 Mar 2005, at 12:39, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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
discussing them at face-to-face meetings, and thought that
considering drafts submitted this mo
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
discussing them at face-to-fa
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
> At this point, less than one week before the meeting, only 14 WGs
> (not counting BOFs) have agendas posted.
humm - maybe there is another explanation for part of that
I sent an agenda (including ID names) in almost a month ago but its not
on the WG & BOF agenda page
forwarded messa
Bruce,
> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more
flexibility in operational procedures than we can get from the
BCP mechanism. Asking for community input, and posting
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
discussing them at face-to-face meetings, and thought that
considering drafts submitted this morning didn't give working groups
enough time to do
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
