Pekka == Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pekka On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pekka == Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pekka I do not agree with the assessment that there is community
Pekka consensus to turn this to BCP right out.
Would you be
I originally said two...and would prefer that.
What I am saying is that there should be a total of two or three instances
as a NOMCOM candidate and that is a much different statement than figuring
who is in office now and who is eligible...As to what it prevents-career
Internet Standards
there were some people who volunteered and were rejected.
apparently i've not been to the required number of IETF mtgs...
--bill
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:59:39PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Folks,
I think that volunteering for the nomcom is something that I should do
as a duty to an
[Discussion invited on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IESG received a request under RFC 3933 to run
draft-klensin-norm-ref-01.txt as an experiment in loosening the IETF's
requirements for normative references in RFCs.
The experiment is composed of two parts. The first part allows
approved Internet
Let's be clear that the experiment wouldn't automatically release
all of those 25 documents. It would only allow ones to be released
that refer (normatively) to
o Internet-Drafts of Standards Track documents for which IESG review
has been completed and Protocol Action or Document
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:04:18 +0100), Tim Chown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
While I can establish a fast telnet session to port 80:
$ telnet www.ietf.org 80
Trying 2001:503:c779:b::d1ad:35b4...
Connected to www.ietf.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
Attempting to
todd glassey wrote:
And since the purpose is to keep the IETF honest, I want the same term
limits for any and all IETF positions, including the TRUST as well.
Including working group chairs and secretaries and directorate members?
-andy
___
Ietf
I don't see any issue with NOMCON term limits.
The question to ask is why is there a NOMCON at all. Why not do what every
other major professional body does and hold elections with the electorate being
defined in the same way that NOMCON membership is?
I am not aware that this procedure has
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:11 AM -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I originally said two...and would prefer that.
What I am saying is that there should be a total of two or
three instances as a NOMCOM candidate and that is a much
different statement than figuring who is
Brian Carpenter wrote:
[...]
So, in conclusion, the IESG seeks comments on whether there is
community interest in turning the first part of this experiment into a
BCP. The IESG also seeks comments from interested document editors
and working group chairs pointing to instances where the
All,
As a participant in the newtrk working group and someone who actually
ran one of the only reasonably successful experiments in that group, I
think the community is owed a better accounting of why WG failed, and
that steps should be taken to see that such efforts do not fail in the
future.
I think the point has been missed here that there have been significant changes
in the way that the IETF works.
Six years ago the norm was for IESG and IAB members to be reappointed as a
matter of course. Most NOMCONs changed one or two positions at most. Working
Group chairs were with few
Phillip - I asked that years ago when I was part of DNSO (Feel free to jump
in any time Hey- The IETF needs to admit it has a real membership and vote
on things. I think the NOMCOM process is a sham and setup with some
technological spin to justify its independence when the whole process needs
to
Eliot - the problem quite simply is that the IESG needs to be disbanded. It
serves no other purpose than to complicate the creation and acceptable
vetting models for Internet Standards and as such really needs to be a thing
of the past - The standards process is easily updated to remove the IESG
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The question to ask is why is there a NOMCON at all. Why not do what
every other major professional body does and hold elections with the
electorate being defined in the same way that NOMCON membership is?
Because we want to
todd glassey wrote:
I originally said two...and would prefer that.
What I am saying is that there should be a total of two or three instances
as a NOMCOM candidate and that is a much different statement than figuring
who is in office now and who is eligible...As to what it prevents-career
From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the NOMCOM process is also quite biased in that eliminates people who
don't attend the meetings but who may be of tremendous value to the
Program. Anyone who cannot afford the global travel required is
exempted from the process ... The
My theme here was that it is probably not humanly possible to absolutely
guarantee that no discretionary decision by the nomcom chair will ever
be required somewhere in the process of nomcom formation because it is
very hard to anticipate all possible real world events. The theme of
Section 5.2 of
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.. the IETF has yet to face the fact that major infrastructure changes
such as IPv6 and DNSSEC require much closer attention to marketting and
deployment than is currently the case.
True.
We are all engineers and as
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The question to ask is why is there a NOMCON at all.
Why not do what
every other major professional body does and hold
elections with the
electorate being defined in the same
Noel - putting the control in any regulated entities hands would be a
staggering improvement. The IETF and IESG have degraded from an open forum
into a professional haven for standards jockey's. This isn't about fair and
open anymore its about who has the money to play.
Sorry but reality is what
John - the problem, is that management doesn't want either of us to gain any
traction on reform or process with real oversight, and actually for all my
screaming into the wind all I really want is a
process that actually is fair and open.
Again - I think the answer is a
Eliot - the problem quite simply is that the IESG needs to be disbanded. It
serves no other purpose than to complicate the creation and acceptable
vetting models for Internet Standards and as such really needs to be a thing
of the past - The standards process is easily updated to remove the IESG
Kieth - abusive language for the purpose of being abusive is prohibited on
these lists. Take this as a formal complaint to the Chair over this action.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Eliot Lear [EMAIL
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The point of NOMCON was to maintain power in the hands of the
establishment and to ensure that there was no effective means of
accountability.
This is flat-out incorrect. The NomCom was created
*precisely* to bring
Now Todd, you must admit that this is true. You are no more chartered
to protect the Internet than IESG is. So why isn't your existence here,
by your own criteria, unwarranted overhead?
Keith
Original Message
Kieth - abusive language for the purpose of being abusive is
So, I was reading Brian's draft and I noticed that it talks a lot
about interoperability, but does not actually define interoperability.
As discussed in a recent IESG appeal, it's not clear that we have a
clear statement of our interoperability goals. There's some text in
section 4 of RFC
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
My theme here was that it is probably not humanly possible to absolutely
guarantee that no discretionary decision by the nomcom chair will ever
be required somewhere in the process of nomcom formation because it is
very hard to anticipate all possible real
The NOMCON is by design accountable to nobody. Members cannot influence their selection in any (legitimate) way. Once appointed a NOMCON member cannot expect to be reappointed.
However the Nomcom consists of a cross-section of the community
all of whom see the same input from the community
No Stewart it doesn't. The leadership in the IETF needs to be washed clean
and made pure again. That will only happen when all the smoke and mirrors'
are stripped clean and the will of the proletariat actually considered
instead of what is done today.
NOMCOM and a non-electoral model are what
The view from my knot hole is that back in the 1990s, the IETF was a
meritocracy in which the power of proven technical insight plus running
code determined our leadership. Our community has been steadily evolving
as times and membership changed.
Your posting reminds me from statements from the
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:20 AM -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John - the problem, is that management doesn't want either of
us to gain any traction on reform or process with real
oversight, and actually for all my
screaming into the wind all I
This is flat-out incorrect. The NomCom was created
*precisely* to bring accountability to I* management
positions, in the wake of the IAB's problematic actions at
the time of the CLNP recommendation.
I think you are being naïve here.
If you want accountability you have elections.
NOMCOM and a non-electoral model are what need to go away - The IETF needs
to be a place where EVERY VOICE is heard and counted.
including, presumably, the voices of the incompetent.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
What the liaisons all have in common is that they are part of the
existing IETF management structure. The potential for this producing a
process that tends to cater to the established structure, rather than
explore alternatives, seems rather straightforward, no matter how
diligent
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM -0400 Keith Moore
moore@cs.utk.edu wrote:
On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates'
names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing
so. Better yet might be to expect all willing candidates to
publicly announce
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NOMCOM and a non-electoral model are what need to go away -
The IETF
needs to be a place where EVERY VOICE is heard and counted.
including, presumably, the voices of the incompetent.
The voices that need to be heard most in the IETF are
Yes Keith even the incompetent get to speak here. And that includes you too.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 05,
Phillip,
Consider the following situation, imagine that there is a vacancy for a
security area director, consider further that I wish for nefarious reasons to
secure the nomination of a particular candidate which left to its own devices
the NOMCON would be unlikely to choose. The first step in
Yes Keith even the incompetent get to speak here. And that includes you too.
You, sir, are not competent to judge my level of competence.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM -0400 Keith Moore
moore@cs.utk.edu wrote:
On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates'
names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing
I do not understand how it can be reasonable to have some
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM -0400 Keith Moore
moore@cs.utk.edu wrote:
One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the
Nomcom now has the ability to brainstorm, conclude that
person X would be a better candidate for
Robert == Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert On 9/5/06, Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a lot of complexities--for example while we hope
every IP stack works with every other IP stack, two machines
may not share a common upper-layer protocol or
At 12:10 PM 9/5/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
What the liaisons all have in common is that they are part of the
existing IETF management structure. The potential for this producing a
process that tends to cater to the established structure, rather than
explore alternatives, seems rather
Dave,
I'm generally happy with the Nomcom process (and I
believe its a better alternative than direct voting).
However, I do agree with you that making the
candidate list public would be useful.
The first reason why I think so relates to fairness.
People tell their colleagues and friends that
(I use the car analogy almost every day in my small computer and network
maintenance company, because most of my customers drive, and they
recognize that as drivers they are responsible for wisely using a
technology that they don't understand.)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The voices that need
From: Sandy Wills [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(I use the car analogy almost every day in my small computer
and network maintenance company, because most of my customers
drive, and they recognize that as drivers they are
responsible for wisely using a technology that they don't
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert == Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert On 9/5/06, Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a lot of complexities--for example while we hope
every IP stack works with every other IP stack, two machines
At 12:37 PM 9/5/2006, Jari Arkko wrote:
Phillip,
Consider the following situation, imagine that there is a vacancy
for a security area director, consider further that I wish for
nefarious reasons to secure the nomination of a particular
candidate which left to its own devices the NOMCON
-Original Message-
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Sandy Wills; ietf
Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to
belackofcommunicaiton here...
SNIP
Cars became more reliable because consumers insisted on
At 21:56 05/09/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
To be clear, I think I'm documenting what is a long-standing consensus
in the IETF.And I do consider it a bug that HTTP does not require
TCP.It's typical for protocols to require a transport.For example
, I believe SIP requires UDP (and possibly
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:44 PM -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the
Nomcom now has the ability to brainstorm, conclude that
person X would be a better candidate for a particular
position than any of the
James M Snell wrote:
a primary goal of mine is to remain consistent with rfc4287.
Hi, I've seen the post last call update (draft -08) triggered
by the GenArt review, where you say are not legally binding.
How about might be not legally binding ? Are not sounds
like forget it.
Frank (IANAL)
Hello Frank,
Yes, there has been some feedback and additional discussion posted to
the atom-syntax list, part of which covers this new section. That forum
would likely be the best place to discuss. That said, however, good
suggestion. Thank you for taking a look.
- James
Frank Ellermann
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:30:40PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Yes Keith even the incompetent get to speak here. And that includes you too.
Yes, the incompetent do get to speak here. That has been amply
demonstrated on this and other threads, without naming anyone in
specific. And, the
Sam Hartman wrote:
[definition of interoperability]
As discussed in a recent IESG appeal, it's not clear that
we have a clear statement of our interoperability goals.
There's some text in section 4 of RFC 2026, but we seem to
actually want to go farther than that text.
[...]
If people
Well said.. Incompetence and stupidity have never been an impediment to a
genuine democratic process. You only need look at the US Congress, UK
Parliament, German Bundestag, and Japanese Diet etal for evidence of that.
-Original Message-
From: Theodore Tso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jefsey == Jefsey Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jefsey At 21:56 05/09/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
To be clear, I think I'm documenting what is a long-standing
consensus in the IETF. And I do consider it a bug that HTTP
does not require TCP. It's typical for protocols to
Jari == Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jari Dave, I'm generally happy with the Nomcom process (and I
Jari believe its a better alternative than direct voting).
Jari However, I do agree with you that making the candidate list
Jari public would be useful.
Me too.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Numerous proposals were made within the working group. The ISD proposal
seemed to be the one that had the most support. However, this proposal
ran into stiff opposition within the IESG and was effectively killed.
We can argue until the cows come home as
Hi -
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Procedures for protocol extensions and variations'to
BCP (draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions)
...
I want to be able to give you a URL and have you resolve it. That
only works
The IESG has received a request from the Secure Shell WG to consider the
following document:
- 'Secure Shell Public-Key Subsystem '
draft-ietf-secsh-publickey-subsystem-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
62 matches
Mail list logo
