On 10/15/12 1:53 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Sad as it is, getting folk together in a room helps focus the
> discussion and provides many fewer opportunities for
> misunderstanding…
I don't like interim meetings, but unfortunately the IETF seems
increasingly meeting-deadline driven so more deadline
On 10/15/12 2:53 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
ok, i am lost. the draft is only an outline and has zero content? is
it a quiz?
No, I believe that it is very subtle satire, reflecting Joel's view on the
utility of the meeting :-P
or it's unsubtle an
[ i should know better than to get into this maelstrom, but .. ]
> For me: Did it make any difference to you that it was a LIM rather
> than simply a SIDR interim?
no. face to face with the ability for remote participation is what
counts.
> Were logistics and resources worth the fee?
not reall
On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> ok, i am lost. the draft is only an outline and has zero content? is
> it a quiz?
No, I believe that it is very subtle satire, reflecting Joel's view on the
utility of the meeting :-P
>
> imiho, the sidr meeting was useful and got work done
> ok, i am lost. the draft is only an outline and has zero content? is
> it a quiz?
Treat it like that and see if you can give Joel the right answers.
For me: Did it make any difference to you that it was a LIM rather than simply a
SIDR interim? Were logistics and resources worth the fee? Shoul
ok, i am lost. the draft is only an outline and has zero content? is
it a quiz?
imiho, the sidr meeting was useful and got work done which probably
would have taken a lot more time online and would have had the wonderful
email misunderstanding amplification.
randy
Joel,
Thanks for this stake in the ground as a starting point for recording
observations on the LIM. As an AD who was not there, I believe it is really
important that we try to capture this experience to decide whether to repeat the
idea, and if so, how to improve it.
Cheers,
Adrian
> -Origi
Based on the comments received from the IETF community and the IEEE RAC, the
draft IESG statement has been updated. Comments on the revised text are
solicited.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- REVISED DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Ethertype Assignments for IETF Protocols
The IEEE Registr
--On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:14 -0500 Pete Resnick
wrote:
> My concern (along with many other folks)
> only kicks in when the collection of this information starts
> to look like a formal antitrust *policy*. I'm afraid that
> having an antitrust policy starts to lead us down the path of
>
On 15/10/2012 15:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
>> message at any time earlier this year.
...
> Sam, I'm actually quite surprised at your reaction.
In fairness to both of you, I can see why
On 10/15/2012 7:14 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are tak
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are taken seriously.
I need to believe that the IES
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are taken seriously.
I need to believe that the IESG will take these issues seriously, will
13 matches
Mail list logo
