Bill Fenner wrote in ietf.ietf.org:
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/viz/
[...]
Feedback is welcome.
Nice. I know that I need glasses, but maybe you could arrange
for bigger figures with a bigger font size ? I've tested...
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/viz/usefor-norm.pdf
Bill Fenner wrote in ietf.ietf.org:
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/viz/
[...]
Feedback is welcome.
Nice. I know that I need glasses, but maybe you could arrange
for bigger figures with a bigger font size ? I've tested...
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/viz/usefor-norm.pdf
Date: 2005-05-16 13:15
From: Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These graphs show inter-document dependencies(*) of
all I-Ds that are working group documents, and one hop forwards and
back - for example, if a foowg document depends on
draft-fenner-great-stuff, then the individual draft shows
Title: Converted from Rich Text
John,
One thing that Danny's questionaire didn't address was "How many additional folks might consider putting their names in the hat if they knew the candidates. In past years, when I have gotten a request from NOMCOM to review the padded list, I've
John C Klensin wrote:
...
In theory, 3932 changed almost nothing. The IESG asserted that it was
not going to do what it had been barred from doing all along, which was
holding up individual submissions (non-IETF documents) until they were
rewritten to match the tastes and preferences of any
Well, there are always going to be judgement calls about whether something
is or isn't an end-run, which is where I would expect discuss
positions to come from on such documents.
Process-wise, this isn't right, IMO (which is where I suspect John is
coming from). Process-wise, the thing to do
On 5/17/05, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice. I know that I need glasses, but maybe you could arrange
for bigger figures with a bigger font size ?
Frank,
I used PDF because most PDF viewers allow zooming and panning. I've
left graphviz to decide on the layout itself, since for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Narten wrote:
Well, there are always going to be judgement calls about whether something
is or isn't an end-run, which is where I would expect discuss
positions to come from on such documents.
Process-wise, this isn't right, IMO (which
--On May 1, 2005 9:04:12 AM -0700 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in general I think the issue is stricter meeting planning and
management, where the goals and process are more explicit.
Sorry for coming very late to this discussion.
I might suggest scheduling a (preferably voice)
The IETF Chair is considering a proposal to eliminate tombstone
files for Internet-Drafts that have expired, or that have been
withdrawn or replaced. If the proposal is approved, then
tombstones would no longer be created for such documents,
and existing tombstones would be deleted from the
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'GSAKMP: Group Secure Association Group Management Protocol '
draft-ietf-msec-gsakmp-sec-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multicast Security Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam
11 matches
Mail list logo
