[I was on disconnected holidays during the Last Call, sorry.]
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:05:30AM -0400,
IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 119 lines which said:
The leaders of the IEEE Standards Association, the IAB, the IETF,
the Internet Society, and the W3C signed a statement
Hi John,
Thanks for your advise and comments. I prefered that consensus is
documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc.
How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs
Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as rough consensus and
Just on a practical matter, many of us WG chairs like to get the
minutes uploaded as quickly as possible, before the blue sheet numbers
are available. Like John, I fail to see the value of recording the
number of people sitting in chairs, except to size the room for the
next meeting. One of the
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:05:30AM -0400,
IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 119 lines which said:
You can learn more about these principles at www.open-stand.org.
The link Français for the translation of the principles in French
yields a 404...
May be it was written by
AB,
I think what Andy says is that percentage nothing to do with rough
consensus. Rough consensus has everything to do with finding ways
forward that the entire wg can live with. Sometimes people find
themselves in the rough, we don't fully agree with what working group
chairs says is the wg
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr
I strongly regret that Commerce has a specific mention, among all the
other uses of the Internet. The network is not only open for business!
I hear you, but unless the Internet were a money-making system it would not
have grown as
On Wed 29/Aug/2012 11:54:02 +0200 Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr
I strongly regret that Commerce has a specific mention, among all the
other uses of the Internet. The network is not only open for business!
I hear you, but unless the Internet were a
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:12:26AM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc.
That's impossible to answer. We don't do voting.
How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs
We use our judgement. That's why we
At 01:12 29-08-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Thanks for your advise and comments. I prefered that consensus is
documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc.
There isn't any percentage for consensus.
How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs
This is an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 'Principles for Unicode Code Point
Inclusion in Labels in the DNS'.
The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC
within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection here:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6680
Title: Generic Security Service Application Programming
Interface (GSS-API) Naming Extensions
Author: N. Williams, L. Johansson,
S.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6715
Title: vCard Format Extensions: Representing vCard
Extensions Defined by the Open Mobile
Alliance (OMA) Converged Address Book (CAB)
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6717
Title: kx509 Kerberized Certificate Issuance Protocol
in Use in 2012
Author: H. Hotz, R. Allbery
Status: Informational
Stream:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6722
Title: Publishing the Tao of the IETF
as a Web Page
Author: P. Hoffman, Ed.
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6725
Title: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm
IANA Registry Updates
Author: S. Rose
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
15 matches
Mail list logo
