Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian My point is only that while we have an active WG looking at
Brian the question of license terms for the use of text from
Brian RFCs, it wouldn't be right for the IESG to unilaterally
Brian approve a
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian My point is only that while we have an active WG looking
at
Brian the question of license terms for the use of text from
Brian RFCs,
When considering some recent appeals, the IESG discovered that
we have very little guidance about the meaning of experiments
in relation to Experimental RFCs. RFC 2026 refers to work which
is part of some research or development effort and the IESG
has adopted some guidelines to discriminate
It is not clear to me what I ought to do at this point. I will
conduct the Last Call if requested by the document authors, but I
need exact text for it.
Russ
At 04:22 AM 2/15/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Sam,
Failing to document reality is not generally considered a virtue in these
parts:-)
I can't decide whether this appropriate sentiment would work better as a
t-shirt or as a tattoo...
Thanks for sharing!
Spencer
___
Ietf mailing
Brian,
It would seem to me that the purpose of an experimental RFC is to let
people perform and participate in (rather public) experiments on the
Internet. A reasonable standard for experimental is that there be a
thesis and a procedure so that the experiment can be repeated,
observations can be
On 2/15/06, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When considering some recent appeals, the IESG discovered that
we have very little guidance about the meaning of experiments
in relation to Experimental RFCs.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt
What's wrong with the definition that
There are two different potential intentions to 'Experimental':
1. to conduct an experiment, as Eliot notes below, i.e.,
to gain experience that a protocol 'does good' 'in the wild'
2. to gain experience that a protocol does no harm 'in the wild'
I think of IETF Experimental track as being
I believe if the community does not have confidence that the protocol will
actually work on the Internet, then we are experimenting. I think this
definition would cover a number of protocols we would now consider for
Proposed Standard (rather than Informational), and pushes us back towards
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
we do not know what constitutes an acceptable experiment on
the Internet.
Maybe something that doesn't harm folks who don't participate.
For whatever reasons, maybe because they don't know about the
experiment.
focus on the general issue rather than the specifics of
Dear IESG,
I'm glad that you are considering this experiment. We certainly heard from
people who expressed discomfort with the current BCP procedures in this area
during recent discussions, and I don't know that very many people were
thrilled with those procedures (especially after we started
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
make the proposal a topic of the General Area open meeting
in Dallas, and issue the Last Call after the Dallas meeting.
It's only an experiment relevant for listmoms and WG Chairs.
Nothing like that other case with about 1,000,000 domains and
a community
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Just by itself without last call experiment is probably ok when
you have some new concept that needs to be tested and documented
and its use should would cause any significant problems for anything
else.
This was supposed to be:
Just by
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spencer I agree that IESG can conduct experiments of more than 18
Spencer months duration under BCP 93, but the specific procedural
Spencer problem here isn't about an experiment that needs to run
Spencer for 18 months, it's
This is a Third (and final) Call for Nominations
The Internet Society (ISOC) provides organizational and financial
support for the IETF. As part of the arrangements between ISOC and the
IETF, the IETF is called upon to name 3 Trustees to its Board (BoT),
with staggered 3 year terms. This requires
Dear Brian,
ICANN ICP-3 document called for a DNS test-bed to carry experiments
in a given framework (to test various DNS evolutions including the
end of the root). The document lists interesting criteria/conditions.
Some are related to the DNS (non profit, ultimate agreement by the
The Entity MIB (entmib) WG in the Operations and Management Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Bert Wijnen and David Kessens.
The mailing list will be closed.
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
The Bridge MIB WG (bridge) in the Operations and Management Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Bert Wijnen and David Kessens.
+++
The Working Group chairs and the Area Directors have agreed that the
Bridge MIB WG has completed its charter, and that the working group
will be
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Experimental Procedure for Long Term Suspensions from Mailing Lists '
draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt as an Experimental RFC
NOTE: This is a Last Call under RFC 3933 (BCP 93). If
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Attribute Certificate Policies extension '
draft-ietf-pkix-acpolicies-extn-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
'
draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-03.txt as a
21 matches
Mail list logo
