The IESG's initial thought on this matter was that the bar for
removing things from the archive ought to be set as high as we could
get it so as to avoid all sorts of silly requests and DoS attacks
(and, at least in my mind, so that the legal questions were near nil:
unless an appropriate
Randy,
On 9/7/12 8:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The IESG's initial thought on this matter was that the bar for
removing things from the archive ought to be set as high as we could
get it so as to avoid all sorts of silly requests and DoS attacks
(and, at least in my mind, so that the legal
An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a competent legal demand.
This leaves sufficient flexibility for the IESG to decide when a legal
demand requires the removal and when it's bogus
so the iesg will now spend their spring retreat in law school? we have
a test
Randy,
so the iesg will now spend their spring retreat in law school? we have
a test for competent legal demand. it is called a court order.
In the case of DMCA, if you wait for a court order, you can lose your
liability shield, which has been the point that Sam and others have
raised. There
In the case of DMCA
i am not competent to speak to circumstances surrounding a dmca. i am
glad you and all the other engineers here are. sure saves the ietf
lawyer a lot of work.
randy
In the case of DMCA
i am not competent to speak to circumstances surrounding a dmca. i am
glad you and all the other engineers here are. sure saves the ietf
lawyer a lot of work.
Bingo. And even if we were competent to assess this stuff - which we most
assuredly are not - any notion that
Ned,
We are venturing into an area of rabid agreement on the premise but
disagreement on the conclusion, which I find astonishing.
On 9/7/12 9:29 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
The only question that need concern us at present is whether or not the
stated policy gives the IESG the necessary
On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
Would
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally
required to do so.
fix the ambiguity?
Stewart
On 9/7/12 11:33 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
Would
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally
required to do so.
That is
On 9/6/12, NomCom Chair nomcom-ch...@ietf.org wrote:
However, we also need the community's views and input on the jobs
within each organization. If you have ideas on job responsibilities
(more, less, different), please let us know. Please send suggestions
and feedback to nomco...@ietf.org.
--On Friday, September 07, 2012 10:33 +0100 Stewart Bryant
stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in
compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
Would
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D
--On Friday, September 07, 2012 15:54 +0900 Randy Bush
ra...@psg.com wrote:
An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in
compliance with a competent legal demand.
This leaves sufficient flexibility for the IESG to decide
when a legal demand requires the removal and when it's bogus
We seem to have adopted a policy of making the summer meeting overlap
what is for me the start of school holidays, and a time to avoid
travelling.
I used to think of IETF54, IETF57 and IETF66 as the norm and anything
else as an aberration, but now it seems the reverse is true.
Incidentally, I
Tom,
the overlap with school holidays might be true from some perspective,
but the two countries (Sweden and Philippines) I'm most familiar with
show that if there is a goal to avoid that it is not doable.
In Sweden there is school holidays from around June 10th and into
August. In the
On 9/7/2012 2:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally
required to do so.
That is where I was aiming, albeit with s/will/may/. Again, I recommend
that Jorge review. Nothing in this policy should REQUIRE the IESG to
act, or set that
On 07/09/2012 14:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
The IESG should not be /required/ to honor a court order?
whose court order?
Nick
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:35:24PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
I must say, I find this a very strange thing to say. The original
statement was we will not remove anything from the archive unless
ordered to by duly authorized court.
[…]
questions. I'm not sure I like the idea of making my job
On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
...
Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a good
idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire gracefully.
+1
Let's not forget there was a reason for expiration.
I'm OK with the archive being public so long as at least
Hi, all,
This statement seems fine, but it's worth noting that it would apply
only to *IETF* protocol specs. The IESG has, IMO, no authority to make
such claims for independent submissions (and what about IRTF ones?), and
the IEEE should recognize that such protocols are described by RFCs
On 07/09/2012 15:48, Joe Touch wrote:
On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
...
Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a good
idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire gracefully.
Speaking as a document reviewer for both Gen-ART and the Independent
On 9/7/2012 8:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 07/09/2012 15:48, Joe Touch wrote:
...
Let's not forget there was a reason for expiration.
Expired != invisible
Expired = no longer *published*.
IMO, the expires indication on an ID indicates the expiration of the
ability of the ISOC to
PS - to note an astonishing concept:
On 9/7/2012 8:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 07/09/2012 15:48, Joe Touch wrote:
On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
...
Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a good
idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire
On 9/7/2012 8:45 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
It's not always about what is best for *you* or for other reviewers.
Actually, it is. The documents are issued by the IETF to facilitate
public discussion. It's the only reason to have the mechanism.
It's about what encourages a more open exchange
On 9/7/2012 8:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/7/2012 8:45 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
It's not always about what is best for *you* or for other reviewers.
Actually, it is. The documents are issued by the IETF to facilitate
public discussion. It's the only reason to have the mechanism.
There
On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:51 AM 9/7/12, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
This statement seems fine, but it's worth noting that it would apply only to
*IETF* protocol specs.
What did you have in mind as noting? This text seems pretty clear to me as
applying only to IETF protocol specifications:
As I noted, if the IETF publishes IDs, why bother with RFCs?
It's difficult to imagine that you mean that as a serious question, but
just in case:
You are asking whether there is an important difference between a
circulating mechanism that has no review, approval or quality control
Hi, Ralph,
I agree with your assessment below, but historically the IETF guidelines
work more smoothly when cases are spelled out rather than dealt with by
omission. I think a few sentences being more explicit about what is not
covered would be useful, esp. for the IEEE.
Joe
On 9/7/2012
On 9/7/2012 9:21 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
And by the way, formally, I-D's are not published. That's a
semantic point, but apparently it's important for this discussion.
At lease one of the ISOC's boilerplates states:
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of
Hi,
One request about IETF 110 21 - 26 March 2021.
March 27 is Jewish Passover (Pesach) so the 26th will not work for those who
observe this major Holiday
Roni Even
From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of IETF
James Polk jmp...@cisco.com writes:
IETF 106 seems a bit late in November. Are we boxed in by other SDO
meetings, or is this by our own choice?
Keep in mind that Thanksgiving isn't until November 28 in 2019. There
is certainly history of IETF being held the week before Thanksgiving.
James
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
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-05
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: Sep-06-2012
IETF LC End Date: Aug-29-2012
IESG Telechat date:
When I started attending IETF meetings in 1996, it was after about 6 years of
reading mailing lists, at a time when netetiquette
or Internet 101 was actively taught. We (because I taught others after
learning it) taught people enough about how email worked so that
they would understand basic
On 9/5/12 5:12 AM, Michael Richardson {quigon} wrote:
It's also possible that some grey beards who
have only remote attended for years (Yes, I thinking about you
Melinda, Keith...) might have missed some subtle change in process.
This is a great note, Michael, and now that I'm attending again
On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
As I noted, if the IETF publishes IDs, why bother with RFCs?
In addition to what Dave said, the target audience of drafts are IETF
participants. The target audience of RFCs varies, but in the usual case it's
implementers. So drafts might have
Le 2012-09-05 09:12, Michael Richardson {quigon} a écrit :
Let me suggest that at the IETF, where the mailing list is king, you can't join
the Elite if you can't quote email properly.
Maybe we should *state* this.
Maybe I'm also concerned because many in the former elite have moved to Apple
On 09/05/12 09:12, Michael Richardson {quigon} allegedly wrote:
What I am writing about is that I think that we a problem with
transfer students... those who did their september elsewhere, and
have now switched schools for the winter semester. It doesn't occur
to them that they don't know how
At 08:43 07-09-2012, Joe Touch wrote:
IMO, the expires indication on an ID indicates the expiration of
the ability of the ISOC to publish the draft.
This raises the question of what expires means.
So IMO the ISOC is then violating the terms of submission of a doc
if it posts it publicly in
Le 2012-09-07 14:36, Scott Brim a écrit :
Maybe I'm also concerned because many in the former elite have
moved to Apple Mail, and it seems that it is bug compatible with
Outlook in it's assumption that format=flowed is the default, an act
which destroys email quoting, and therefore discussion.
On 9/7/12 10:53 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Thunderbird is correct by default AFAIK.
Unfortunately not on Mac OS. It's become automatic for me to
hit command-R when replying, but that doesn't solve the basic
problem.
Melinda
Le 2012-09-07 15:15, Melinda Shore a écrit :
On 9/7/12 10:53 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Thunderbird is correct by default AFAIK.
Unfortunately not on Mac OS. It's become automatic for me to
hit command-R when replying, but that doesn't solve the basic
problem.
That's what we've been
On 9/7/12 11:30 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
That's what we've been saying. Apple sends broken mail. Thunderbird has
a function to fix broken mail (command-R). Thunderbird is correct. Apple
is broken.
Sure, but the default wrapping is wrong for many of us and wrong
for IETF email. Thunderbird
Hi Michael,
At 06:12 05-09-2012, Michael Richardson {quigon} wrote:
like other SDOs, they think. Worse of all, I think, many of these
people have doing what they thought was email for around a decade,
(yes, using Outlook), they have no idea how email works, nor do they
even know there is
Dr. John Larmouth was one of the creators of ASN.1. He was an active
participant in ITU SG 17. The IETF makes use of ASN.1 for several protocols.
I have placed an online condolence at
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/condolences.html. If you knew Dr.
Larmouth, you may wish to do
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-eai-mailinglistbis-05
On 9/7/2012 11:37 AM, SM wrote:
At 08:43 07-09-2012, Joe Touch wrote:
IMO, the expires indication on an ID indicates the expiration of the
ability of the ISOC to publish the draft.
This raises the question of what expires means.
At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then
really good message michael. shame about the line wrap :)
Thunderbird is correct by default AFAIK.
Unfortunately not on Mac OS. It's become automatic for me to hit
command-R when replying, but that doesn't solve the basic problem.
in the new ietf, everyone will use emacs. the old dogs'
On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
This raises the question of what expires means.
At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then expires is no
longer meaningful and the entirety of that notion needs to be expunged
from the ID process.
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
i say scott should teach emacs :)
Epsilon, dude! Who the heck wants to write their editor extensions in freaking
LISP? :-)
Noel
The PCP Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on Friday, September
21, 2012, at 7AM PDT, using WebEx.
Agenda and dialin information will be posted at:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/wiki
Dr. John Larmouth was one of the creators of ASN.1. He was an active
participant in ITU SG 17. The IETF makes use of ASN.1 for several protocols.
I have placed an online condolence at
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/condolences.html. If you knew Dr.
Larmouth, you may wish to do
50 matches
Mail list logo
