Hi Russ,
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer
groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the
reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important
that individuals get to make input to new standards not only companies.
Hi Dave,
Independent Stream authors well might not be part of the IETF -- always
a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but
that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF.
Any I-D author MUST be part of IETF otherwise what is IETF then, how do we
--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I
would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but
also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to
convince an
Hi Abdussalam,
At 08:50 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would
prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to
know the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It
is important that individuals
Hi SM,
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track
document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider?
The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
AB
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
Hi Abdussalam,
At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard
track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or
not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
There is no such thing
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
Hi,
I don't understand the process for this document.
I read Russ's words, but I don't glean the meaning :-(
This document is in IETF last call for publication in the IETF stream.
Yet any comments received will not necessarily be taken on board and the
document will not be published as having
SMThere is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the
author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can
adopt such an I-D.
RussThe Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to
On 9/25/2012 11:15 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard
track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or
not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good questions all.
IMHO, Independent Stream at most. Or a simple blog post would do. :)
On 9/25/12 1:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi, I don't understand the process for this document.
I read Russ's words, but I don't glean the meaning :-(
I felt that the IETF Last Call would bring it to the attention of the
community. This seems worthwhile because the opinions are about an IETF
process.
Russ
On Sep 25, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
I don't understand the process for this document.
I read Russ's words, but
I don't understand the process for this document.
I read Russ's words, but I don't glean the meaning :-(
Think of it like the documents where we republish something from
another organization:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6449/
or publish something that describes how a product
At 07:40 25-09-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle'
draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00.txt as Informational RFC
The author is documenting his own
SM:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle'
draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00.txt as Informational RFC
The author is documenting his own opinion, and he is presenting
On 09/25/2012 05:03 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-dime-erp-12 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
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, tglassey wrote:
The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards
so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert.
Todd
That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't
get created and adopted using The
On 09/26/2012 03:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good questions all.
IMHO, Independent Stream at most. Or a simple blog post would do. :)
On 9/25/12 1:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi, I don't understand the process for this document.
I read
On 9/25/2012 6:32 PM, David Morris wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, tglassey wrote:
The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards
so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert.
Todd
That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it
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-6man-dad-proxy-05
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle'
draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00.txt as Informational RFC
The author is documenting his own opinion, and he is presenting that
opinion
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RSVP Association Object Extensions'
(draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-06.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A User Agent Profile Data Set for Media Policy'
(draft-camarillo-rai-media-policy-dataset-04.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Robert
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond web (ABFAB) Use
Cases'
(draft-ietf-abfab-usecases-05.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Application Bridging for Federated
Access Beyond web Working Group.
The IESG
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6707
Title: Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI)
Problem Statement
Author: B. Niven-Jenkins, F. Le Faucheur,
N. Bitar
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6721
Title: The Atom deleted-entry Element
Author: J. Snell
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: September 2012
Mailbox:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6730
Title: Requirements for IETF Nominations Committee
Tools
Author: S. Krishnan, J. Halpern
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6752
Title: Issues with Private IP Addressing
in the Internet
Author: A. Kirkham
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6756
Title: Internet Engineering Task Force and
International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization
Sector
29 matches
Mail list logo
