On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011-09-21 05:44, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
snip
The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their
meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement.
(so yes, I
Interesting too that the questions about future attendance mention the sponsor,
as if our decision should be predicated upon who is sponsoring the event.
And, in the reasons for non-attendance, it is a shame, in the light of recent
discussions on this list, that 'cost' is not broken down into
-
At 22:47 20-09-2011, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
For the IAOC and IAB these will be difficult
challenges that cannot be enforced externally
but also need an evolutionary culture change.
Not only in the I* bodies themselves but also how the NOMCOM.
The IAOC has been around for six years. The IESG
2011/9/21 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:03:21PM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Do you have a Gray Beard?
[Ob.SpelThrd] That's spelled Grey Beard!
Oh... I believed it was a beard of Frank Gray (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gray_(researcher) )
:-)
You all are just bragging you still have hair :-(
On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/20/11 6:26 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
This reminds me that it has been a while since we took the last IETF grey
beard photo. A few more of us have gone grey since then.
Maybe we should
Jari,
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Bob,
I appreciate your view on this, particularly when you are day-to-day seeing
how the current system works with IAOC.
Thanks. I also note that several past IAOC chairs have expressed concern about
this proposal as well. That
Jari,
A few comments on your email to Jonne.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Jonne,
First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta!
Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä
polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella
Clearly, this photo needs to include the wise women of the Internet!
Ron
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:56 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Olaf,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Thanks Bob,
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter!
Thanks.
Dear Colleagues,
Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
Essentially I
On 9/20/2011 7:26 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
This reminds me that it has been a while since we took the last IETF grey beard
photo. A few more of us have gone grey since then.
Maybe we should plan on another photo to be taken after the next Administrative
Plenary.
By the way, if there's
Bob,
Goggle translate was helpful here :-)
Good... and next time when we meet over beer I can reveal the correct
translation :-)
I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It should
really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an outsider, it
Dear Jari;
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Bob,
Goggle translate was helpful here :-)
Good... and next time when we meet over beer I can reveal the correct
translation :-)
I fear it might be too much information.
I do like your idea that
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-genarea-milestones-tool-05
Hi,
we are extremely pleased to report that for this award period of
the Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP), 13 eligible nominations
were received. Each submission was reviewed by 4-7 members of the
selection committee according to a diverse set of criteria, including
scientific excellence
Time for the facial hair standard and ensuring that there is a proper
three stage progression from provisional salt and pepper to full blown
white out.
/Elwyn
Eric Burger wrote:
You all are just bragging you still have hair :-(
On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On
On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
It is important for the I* chairs to be connected with the community.
It is important for the IAOC to be connected with the community.
It is important for the I* chairs to be informed about what is happening in
the IAOC
It is important for
Bob, Olaf,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:27:11PM +0300, Bob Hinden wrote:
To repeat what I said, I didn't see the new draft resolving issues that I
and other raised on the list. The new draft is a different approach, but as
Leslie pointed out, it might be worse. In the old draft, the I* chairs
On 21/09/2011 21:03, David Kessens wrote:
The critical thing is that we don't loose the participation of the IETF
chair, IAB chair and ISOC President/CEO while at the same time finding a way
to lighten their workload.
I think one of the questions to be answered is: do we want participation
of
On 21/09/2011 16:50, Jari Arkko wrote:
But do you agree that workload for the chairs is an issue?
Yes, at least all the chairs I know say so, that makes it an issue for me.
Henk
--
--
Henk Uijterwaal
Henk,
If I look back at my years on the IAOC, then I think that it is very important that the opinions of the I* groups is known in the IAOC and it is equally important that the I* groups have a vote when decisions are to be made. I'm not at all convinced though that the person doing this needs
I think this disagreement between two ex-IAB Chairs deserves its own thread.
On 2011-09-21 17:47, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to
figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this disagreement between two ex-IAB Chairs deserves its own
thread.
On 2011-09-21 17:47, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...exactly. I'm far from
The INARC - Internet Architecture Task Force and the IAB were never the same
thing.
The INARC was what was left of the Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures group
after the IETF (actually the INENG at the time) was created halfway through the
GADS meeting. Both GADS and INARC were chaired
Hi Jari,
On 11-09-19 02:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Following up with a personal comment.
The draft allocates an interface ID and an EUI-64 MAC identifier from the
IANA block. These are two separate, unrelated allocations.
The main criticism in RFC 5453 for making additional interface ID
Hi Sri,
On 11-09-19 01:29 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote:
Hi Jari:
In case of PMIPv6, we need the interface ID allocation for PMIv6
domain-wide usage. We may not be able tie this to a specific EUI-64
identifier derived from a MAC identifier of any individual MAG hosting this
configuration.
--On Thursday, September 22, 2011 00:12 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
...
Also, there is some experience from the other direction:
sometimes it has happened that the chair talks with the IAOC
and they come up with some conclusion, but when he talks to
the rest of us in an
I've been watching this with interest. I'm especially in agreement with
Leslie's comments about chair load.
Because of the legal issues with respect to the IETF trust and the implementing
documents for the IAOC, its going to be pretty difficult to come up with a way
to remove some of the
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.netwrote:
I've been watching this with interest. I'm especially in agreement with
Leslie's comments about chair load.
Because of the legal issues with respect to the IETF trust and the
implementing documents for the IAOC, its
The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
(sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE'
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires'
draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels'
(draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-11.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Stewart
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6372
Title: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability
Framework
Author: N. Sprecher, Ed.,
A. Farrel, Ed.
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6376
Title: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
Author: D. Crocker, Ed.,
T. Hansen, Ed.,
M. Kucherawy, Ed.
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 167
RFC 6377
Title: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and
Mailing Lists
Author: M. Kucherawy
Status: Best Current Practice
Stream:
34 matches
Mail list logo
