Where will it say that IETF BCPs apply as relevant?
That is in the markup I have sent to Ray, so I hope
it will be in the next version...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On Wednesday, 26 July, 2006 12:38 -0700 Allison Mankin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
series will be under the contract holder's management in some
way, allowing input from the
Hi,
There are draft minutes of the Wednesday plenary in
Montreal at:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/minutes/plenaryw.txt
If you spoke, please review them and let me know
of any discrepancies. The discussion starts at ietm 6.
Brian
___
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/minutes/genarea.txt
Corrections welcome.
The slides can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=66
(search for GENAREA)
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Leslie Daigle wrote:
...
[*] This is perhaps a reasonable time to reiterate that
the IAB is, in fact, a separate entity from the IETF organization.
There are many who believe that all RFCs are Internet standards
documents, thus the current concern with adding IESG non-review
statements to
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
...
I agree that things would be simpler if we could come up with a way to
do things that didn't require figuring out the answer. Unfortunately,
I'm not convinced we can. Before I go any further, let me point out
that I have no reason to believe that ISI will act
Note that I never said that the IAB was not part of the
IETF family/universe/collection.
The important thing is that the IAB is independent in
its decision making, and not subject to the IESG's
whims or strictly bound by the IETF's input, which appeared to
be the key elements in your concerns
...
My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
series will be under the contract holder's management in some
way, allowing input from the editor. I want to urge this
just because the RFC series is shared by four streams.
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Note that I never said that the IAB was not part of the
IETF family/universe/collection.
The important thing is that the IAB is independent in
its decision making, and not subject to the IESG's
whims or strictly bound by the IETF's input, which appeared to
be the
Nice Andy... bravo!
T
-Original Message-
From: Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jul 26, 2006 8:23 PM
To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED], Allison Mankin [EMAIL PROTECTED],
IETF
Joe,
[...]
*independent* means that. It does NOT mean IETF-family controlled.
I would first see independent submissions abolished altogether. There
are many publishing outlets. This is not the 1970s. The term RFC has
been appropriated by the IETF community.
Eliot
todd glassey wrote:
So someone submits something to the IETF for standardization that is
patented or that they intend to patent. But in the process of submitting the
work-product to the IETF for publication it is altered by the editor's both
in form and in functionality.
Another variant
--On Thursday, 27 July, 2006 14:40 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
series will be under the contract holder's management in
some way, allowing input from
Eliot Lear wrote:
Joe,
[...]
*independent* means that. It does NOT mean IETF-family controlled.
I would first see independent submissions abolished altogether. There
are many publishing outlets. This is not the 1970s. The term RFC has
been appropriated by the IETF community.
Right Dean - I guess you don't know much about Perjury Constrained
Declarations - there is a State and Federal Jurisdiction here at place...
which are you folks choosing?
Here is the problem - the contract may not be binding without some statement
specific to the selection of law since many of
FWIW - (I have an idea about recreating the peer-based standards process to
not only build oversight into it to prevent one set of peers from
interfering with another set of peers efforts, something that runs rampant
in this IETF and causes tremendous damage to some initiatives, but a process
that
Mr. Anderson... (Thanks Dean - I always wanted to say that)
Contracts are funny things. In contract's from my lay experience, the party
responsible for the creation of the terms of the contract is usually held
accountable for failings in the contract fully. That would mean that the
IETF is 100%
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4595
Title: Use of IKEv2 in the
Fibre Channel Security Association Management
Protocol
Author: F. Maino, D. Black
Status:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'vCard Extensions for Instant Messaging (IM)'
draft-jennings-impp-vcard-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
19 matches
Mail list logo
