On 01/22/2006 01:19 AM, Elwyn Davies allegedly wrote:
- EGP Modifications
FGP, the follow-on gateway protocol.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Well said Barry!
From: Barry Leiba
My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation
and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure
how realistic they are. Without getting overly into
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and
it's still the same discussion as when I left!
I notice the same thing. The Harper Valley PTA is still very much at
work, but technical issues seem to be few and far between.
What, are you
John Levine writes:
I cannot tell you how many lists I've been on that have been in
exactly our situation, paralyzed by one or two people who skate along
the edge of being kicked off, choking the list with clouds of
irrelevant smoke. There's always the same arguments, if we were
disciplined
I do not support approval of this PR-action.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Jan 18, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
The IESG has received a request from Harald Alvestrand to approve
an RFC
3683 PR-action (posting rights action) for JFC (Jefsey) Morfin as a
result of a pattern of
fwiw, my feeling is that if we did bend the rules that way,
we'd be at strong risk of an appeal. I think the rules are
in a bit of a mess.
Brian
Sam Hartman wrote:
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John For whatever it is worth, I want to remind the IESG that,
Marshall,
I do not support approval of this PR-action.
Because.??
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
For the no-tv people like Karin and me:
Harper Valley P.T.A
USA / NBC/ 36x30m-e / 1981-82
First Episode: Friday 16 January 1981 / 8.00pm
Last Episode: Saturday 14 August 1982 / 8.30pm
Theme Music: Harper Valley P.T.A. by Tom T. Hall
Sitcom starring Barbara Eden as Stella Johnson a widow
Because I do not feel that the punishment is merited.
On Jan 22, 2006, at 7:25 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Marshall,
I do not support approval of this PR-action.
Because.??
I posted my thoughts earlier, my understanding is that in the last
call process it is appropriate to restate one's
I do not support the action against Jefsey Morfin, because the outcome
would facilitate a ban on all IETF lists without specific cause and
without recourse. I am not in a position to judge the correctness of a ban
on the lists explicitly cited but I do not believe that we have witnessed
behavior
While I applaud the sentiment, I believe as written this is an unfortunate
and undesirable constraint.
Something along the lines of:
The IETF should endevour to choose venues where all participants who
choose to can attend the meeting
would seem to capture the goal as a goal.
Yours,
Joel
Adrian Farrel writes:
If those who would exclude Jefsey from certain lists feel that repeated 30
day bans are too much work, I suggest they draft a new process that would
allow them to create longer bans on specific lists.
An alternative would be for them to find new jobs that don't include
I appreciate that Adrian and others do care about not being an
elephant in a chinashop. But I see a very serious risk of going the
otherway where we crawl around as a mouse in-between concrete monuments
and are worried that we (as a mouse) would tilt a 1000 kilo monument.
First of all, the PR
--On Sunday, 22 January, 2006 11:30 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fwiw, my feeling is that if we did bend the rules that way,
we'd be at strong risk of an appeal. I think the rules are
in a bit of a mess.
Brian,
I'm disturbed by several aspects of this, most of which have
hi frank,
Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
The values listed in the Location Types Registry document
are not displayed to the user. As such, we don't cover
internationalization support.
That wasn't clear from the draft under discussion. It should
get some I18N considerations explaining
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Makes me still wonder why an entity - I assume that
could be something I carry with me - should be so indiscreet as
telling that it's now in the cafe of a jail in an airport
or other obscure locations. That's nobody's business but mine.
Nobody's business but yours and
So, let me make a few suggestions for getting us unstuck and
back to useful work.
(ii) Let's establish a convention (not a rule -- we would just
screw it up or get tangled in it) that, if a suspension action
is taken against someone whose native language is not English,
we attempt to deliver the
-- Original message -- From: Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marshall, I do not support approval of this PR-action. Because.?? Eliot-
I don't mean any offense by this but the "Because" is the whole problem of these PR-Actions. Somehow "rough concensus" has turned
Adam Roach wrote:
You'll note that this work is coming out of GEOPRIV -- where
the PRIV part of that name stands for privacy.
That's not more obvious in the registry draft. Joe Abley
posted a pointer to draft-ietf-simple-rpid-08 for the missing
context, and there I found lists of locations
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Eventually you end up with multiple groups on a list: those who
irritate others, those who want to censor the ones they find
irritating, and--sometimes--a minority of people who are grown-up
enough to stay out of both of
I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been implemented before or not but it has crossed my mind so I am writing it to you all. Grid / distributed computing is being done these days via availing of services or giving some services as an application in operating systems. What
kent crispin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Eventually you end up with multiple groups on a list: those who
irritate others, those who want to censor the ones they find
irritating, and--sometimes--a minority of people who are grown-up
enough to stay
hi frank,
please find a few comments below:
Adam Roach wrote:
You'll note that this work is coming out of GEOPRIV -- where
the PRIV part of that name stands for privacy.
That's not more obvious in the registry draft. Joe Abley
posted a pointer to draft-ietf-simple-rpid-08 for the
Hello;
I received some private comments, so I will respond in greater depth.
Please be careful what you ask for.
In doing so, I reread IETF list traffic on this from last September /
October last year, and also the complaint.
So, here goes. First, I am aware of how disrupting posters can
Agree, this is my view.
What I think is *against* the regular IETF process is to have exceptions to
anything being published as RFC.
I see a lot of admin documents (and as such this can be considered somehow),
which are RFCs, so as said there should be no difference.
Regards,
Jordi
De:
Hi Barry,
Thanks a lot for your inputs.
I think this point is extremely important and we really need a clear
multi-national position on that, not just from a lot of participants of a
few countries, unless we want to restrict the participation of only
nationals from those countries.
See my
I am growing tired of this meta-discussion, but I just needed to add my 2
cents, then I'll be quiet.
As someone who really wants to get work done, I find it very hard to get the
work done when someone posts seemingly random comments, or at least is using
argumentation that doesn't seem to have
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
chance of getting an RFC.
Why not?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
-- Original message -- From: John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am growing tired of this meta-discussion, but I just needed to add my 2 cents, then I'll be quiet
I cannot say if this is what Jefsey is doing, as I am not active in any of the WGs in question.John-
Can
On 1/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please, if you don't have
an opinion specifically related to Jefsey then stay out of the Jefsey
discussion.
On 1/22/06, Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com wrote:
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
Look at various
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
chance of getting an RFC.
Why not?
Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than going
31 matches
Mail list logo
