On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Elwyn Davies elw...@googlemail.com wrote:
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
I think you missed Eric's proposal for a one-step Balding
My very own BCP!
On Sep 22, 2011, at 4:05 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Elwyn Davies elw...@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
What is needed is someone who is fully engaged in the IAOC.
Having a vote doesn't automatically get you that. Indeed, I would
assume most votes are a formality, with decisions reached mostly by
consensus. If, in fact, votes are close on a regular basis, the IAOC
likely has bigger problems, IMO.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
What is needed is someone who is fully engaged in the IAOC.
Having a vote doesn't automatically get you that. Indeed, I would
assume most votes are a formality, with decisions reached mostly by
consensus.
Both the IAOC
Mike,
On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:01 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
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
Regarding the delegating the IETF chair participation in the IAOC,
On 9/22/2011 8:55 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
IETF Chair
The IETF chair is chosen by the nomcom. The job requirements are clear in
advance. Anyone applying is aware of the job. I don't think the IETF Chair
position on the IAOC
For Mike, Marshall, and for others who might be noodling on this ...
I hesitate to suggest this, but its probably time:
Let's add a position to the IESG - Executive Vice-Chair or Co-Adjutor
Chair. Basically, either the chair's personal representative (Executive
Vice-Chair) or their
Hi Suresh,
On 9/21/11 3:32 PM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
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
1986 Internet Activities Board
1992 Internet Architecture Board
I think this is incorrect. The earliest IAB was created by the ARPA
program manager Vint Cert in 1981. (In fact, I probably have some
scribbled notes from the first IAB meeting). Vint chose the name
Activities to
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Bob Braden wrote:
1986 Internet Activities Board
1992 Internet Architecture Board
I think this is incorrect. The earliest IAB was created by the ARPA program
manager Vint Cert in 1981. (In fact, I probably have some scribbled notes
from the first IAB
Hi Bob -
I actually think that delegating this to a co-chair or executive vice chair
would work. The similar military model is commander/executive officer where
the commander (chair) is responsible for strategic thinking and the XO
(co-chair) is responsible for tactical execution. Also the
I reviewed this document as a part of IESG document approvals this week.
I have to say that I found it difficult to decide whether to recommend the
approval of this or not. We are in a difficult position, out of addresses,
having to deploy NAT444, having to choose between the bad and even
My version of the history is taken from the IAB's own web site,
and it is very specific that the original name was Advisory
from 1984 to 1986:
http://www.iab.org/about/history/
Not that it really matters; I just wanted to observe that the role
has evolved over the years.
Brian
On
Jari,
I found your review comments to be very thoughtful and helpful. I understand
the concerns you are raising, and I agree that your proposed way forward is
reasonable.
I did have one question:
So here's what I would like to propose. The document goes forward but we
make a much clearer
Hi Jari,
At 11:35 22-09-2011, Jari Arkko wrote:
But there is clearly consensus in the operator community that we
need this. However, I
Are you referring to the correspondence between the IAB and ARIN at
Thanks for that question, it is a good one.
I would like these additions to be made to a new version of draft-weil. I'm
willing to contribute, if necessary.
Jari
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
SM,
There obviously has been discussions at ARIN and in the IAB. But when I said
consensus in my e-mail, I was referring to discussions in the IETF.
Jari
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Is the draft being approved for publication as an Informational
RFC? If so, I would appreciate if it documents IETF Consensus.
Regards,
-sm
Before the allocation is made, it will need to be last called again as a BCP.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari
Arkko
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:35 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org; draft-weil-shared-transition-space-requ...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
The other reason I suggested adding a co-chair is that our process of
finding an IETF chair replacement is haphazard at best and criminally
negligent at worst. I'd really like to get a few apprentices identified
and qualified
Hi Sri,
On 11-09-21 08:44 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote:
Two MAG's in the same broadcast domain can be ruled out, as there is no
mechanism for the nodes to decide on who should support the attached MN.
More over, we still have the P2P link assumption and so multiple MAG's in
the same broadcast
Wes,
:
- what types of impacts may be felt by the rest of the network (not the ISP
that is deploying NAT444)
- what kinds of application practices may be affected
- what IETF specifications may need revision due to this (e.g., do we need to
revise ICE etc)
Jari -
It's unclear from your
Dual-Stack Lite, RFC6333 that makes these conversions using a single NAT
by combining IPv6 address space with a common 192.0.0.0/29. This
approach does not suffer from scaling limitations other than
constraining access points to 6 IPv4 interfaces where IPv6 provides the
native IP protocol.
Total of 160 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 23 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.50% | 12 | 11.50% | 144948 | marshall.euba...@gmail.com
7.50% | 12 | 7.30% |91965 |
On 9/22/11 4:59 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
It's unclear from your statement if you're proposing adding the above to this
draft or to a subsequent draft.
Sorry. I think this should be a part of draft-weil. I think we'll end up
making further work in this space (e.g., if some
82nd IETF Meeting
Taipei, Taiwan
November 13-18, 2011
Host: Taiwan Network Information Center (TWNIC)
Host Website: http://ietf82.tw/
Meeting venue: Taipei International Convention Center (TICC)
http://www.ticc.com.tw/index_en.aspx
Register online at:
26 matches
Mail list logo
