--On Friday, 20 October, 2006 17:11 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
Andrew,
Let me suggest, and suggest to the Nomcom, that these
requirements are the opinions of the incumbents of what it
takes to do the jobs as they see them.
To be very precise,
On 10/22/06, David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This basically allows the IESG to do whatever it pleases without
requiring community input. And because of this, it will also be hard
to appeal any decisions made this way as this draft supports the idea
that the IESG has the authority to do
On Oct 18, 2006, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] jax871-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if someone can refer me to any organizations/
businesses that
can provide an independent review of software for verification
validation of RFC compliance?
The TAHI project provides verification for
- Original Message -
From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF-Announce ietf-announce@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:29 AM
Subject: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' to BCP
(draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)
The IESG has received a request from an individual
David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:14:41PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[David's DICUSS stated:]
It is haphazardous at best to rescind one control mechanism and to
replace it with one that leaves non working group mail management
John,
That is important
input, but I question whether it should be controlling for
either applicants or Nomcom decisions. In particular, while,
e.g., the introduction to the IESG Requirements document
seems to strike about the right balance, it suggests that the
role requires between 25 and 40
Tom,
Tom.Petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF-Announce ietf-announce@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:29 AM
Subject: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' to BCP
(draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)
The IESG has received a
Henrik == Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henrik Hi Sam, on 2006-10-20 19:43 Sam Hartman said the
Henrik following:
I was unable to find a text mode browser that can work with
your nomination pages to nominate candidates.
Henrik w3m should work now - I replaced
Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems impractical to specify system requirements or expect a
suitable examination be done realtime prior to obtaining access.
Maybe you're saying that a complete systems check would take too
long. That is true, but that isn't how the NEA variants
Hi Ted,
I would also argue that ideas about how to significantly rearrange the
workload are things shouldn't be happening as part of the nomcom
process, but part of an open discussion so that all stakeholders have
a chance to comment. Those ideas should be applicable regardless of
who the
Date:Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:46:47 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Actually, this document doesn't *need* to contain any rationale.
| The question is whether the community agrees. It doesn't say the IESG;
| it uses the
Hi Sam,
on 2006-10-23 18:19 Sam Hartman said the following:
Henrik == Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henrik Hi Sam, on 2006-10-20 19:43 Sam Hartman said the
Henrik following:
I was unable to find a text mode browser that can work with
your nomination pages to
Hi Robert,
Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:46:47 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Actually, this document doesn't *need* to contain any rationale.
| The question is whether the community agrees. It
--On Monday, 23 October, 2006 21:22 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
In general, at least as things are now, I would prefer that
this current draft simply be dropped, and the current status
be retained.
The problem with the current status is that we have no tools
On Monday, October 23, 2006 04:14:10 PM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) Any language in 3683 that appears to limit other actions
with regard to mailing list abuse needs to be overridden.
Agree. IMHO this is by far the most important part of Brian's proposal, or
of its
I am somewhat confused here.
The reason that the community is able to tollerate the authentication mechanism
in HTTP is that the authentication process has effectively been moved to a
different part of the stack by insisting on the use of SSL transport.
SSL/TLS is not an ideal solution for
I agree. For me personally, this was not hypothetical. The
Pine mail user agent that I use began to intermittently fail
to connect to the IMAP server even when there was no evidence
of problems with network connectivity. The problem turned
out to be DNS fraud.
I use ssh to connect
The Oxford Union Society is the worlds oldest existing debating society
Even though the Union has members there is an additional qualification to stand
for election, a member must have spoken at two debates in the term they wish to
stand before the close of hustings. These are 'qualified
I agree. For me personally, this was not hypothetical. The
Pine mail user agent that I use began to intermittently fail
to connect to the IMAP server even when there was no evidence
of problems with network connectivity. The problem turned
out to be DNS fraud.
I use ssh to
Actually if you had read the followup this was not a
application error but a operator error. Operator errors
are exactly what this misbehaviour depends on. This a
perfectly good example of unexpected consequences.
Note this also breaks the expectations
The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
to consider the following document:
- 'Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities '
draft-ietf-ospf-cap-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
21 matches
Mail list logo
