Keith Moore [mailto://mo...@network-heretics.com] writes:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
In-person meeting time is used regularly for powerpoints rather than
discussion.
+1.
The single biggest thing that IETF could do to raise productivity in
meetings is to
Ted,
I agree with almost everything you say, but want to focus on one
issue (inline below).
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 16:15 -0700 Ted Hardie
ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
As we stare down this rathole one more time, let's at least be
certain that there is more than one rat down there,
A few quick observations...
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 13:20 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
...
While my instinct is that RFC publication would be desirable,
if that didn't seem workable we could move the idea a bit
closer to the Snapshot idea by posting the document in the
I-D series
On 10/30/2010 10:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If that were to be the case, discussion of maturity
levels is basically a waste of time.
I think it is. The general public perceives RFCs as RFCs, not equally
weighty, but NOT ACCORDING TO ANY FORMAL CRITERIA.
We might as well get used to that.
On Oct 30, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
The second biggest thing that IETF could do to raise productivity in
meetings is to ban Internet use in meetings except for the purpose of
remote participation.
Harder to do not clearly an improvement: it clear out meeting rooms a bit,
but on
This discussion has a periodicy about 6 months. The premise is asinine, we
can't go back to the early to mid 90s.
Joel's widget number 2
On Oct 30, 2010, at 7:34, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
The second biggest thing that IETF
I don't think it's resistance to changing a process that we are not following
- I think it's which part of the process we think isn't working, or which part
is IMPORTANT that isn't working.
Going from three steps of which only one step is used, to two steps of which
only one step will be
Hi Ted,
I was with your statements all the way to this:
Russ's draft tries to
do two things:
Restore the 2026 rules for Proposed as the functionally in-use bar for the
first rung.
...
What makes you say that?
I read the draft and I don't see it doing that, really. I know it says:
The
On Oct 14, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
3) The backwards comparability issue seems huge. Some people have said an
endpoint using this draft will not talk with one that only does 4975. Yet if
this draft if published as an RFC would basically depreciate the 4975 and
replace it
On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
If all of those things are right and we're actually trying to solve
them all, then it seems to me that the answer is indeed to move to _n_
maturity levels of RFC, where _n_ 3 (I propose 1), but that we
introduce some new document series
On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
The second biggest thing that IETF could do to raise productivity in
meetings is to ban Internet use in meetings except for the purpose of
remote participation.
Harder to do not clearly an improvement: it clear out meeting rooms a bit,
but
I think that there are some issues that are not being mentioned, but
which are important.
In general, there is the issue of impact. This takes many forms. But
the underlying effect is taht protocols which get widely deployed can
have distinctly negative impact on the net. Thus, for many
The waist of the hourglass doesn't need that much work... and in fact a
mature system like the internet seems to quite successfully resist
change there.
joel
On 10/27/10 2:48 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Tony,
I note that there seems to be some correlation between the degradation
of the IETF
This discussion has a periodicy about 6 months. The premise is asinine, we
can't go back to the early to mid 90s.
What's asinine is to dismiss out-of-hand something has worked well in the past.
The only reason we can't change the way we have discussions is that too many
people are in the
On Oct 30, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
the final arbiter of any test in the room is on the mailing list.
True. But a room with a high ratio of active participants to total attendees
makes a much better sounding board for providing constructive feedback, than a
room with a low
I would be quite curious to know your definition of failure, given that
IPsec is currently deployed, and working in more than a few deployments
...
On a possibly related note, IPv6 use deployed and working too ...
/TJ
On Oct 27, 2010 12:08 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
TJ [trej...@gmail.com] wrote:
I would be quite curious to know your definition of failure, given
that
IPsec is currently deployed, and working in more than a few
deployments
On a possibly related note, IPv6 use deployed and working too ...
Failure means that, I leave in the capital city of
It should be easier to get a specification to IETF standard than to start an
alternative standards organization.
I think that is still true and tried to convince the OpenID people that this
was the case but they did not believe me.
The question is priorities and costs. Having a process that is
TJ wrote:
I would be quite curious to know your definition of failure, given that
IPsec is currently deployed, and working in more than a few deployments
...
Sorry for lack of clarification.
My context is IPsec in the Internet, which excludes VPNs.
Do you know some major application over the
19 matches
Mail list logo
