Hi Brian,
The point is that we work in public, so the whole community should
know.
Working group mailing lists are also public.
I regularly attend WG meetings where I am not subscribed - it's one of
the
side benefits of the week-long meetings - and who's to say that I might
not
want
On 12/4/12 12:28 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
Hi Brian,
The point is that we work in public, so the whole community should
know.
Working group mailing lists are also public.
I regularly attend WG meetings where I am not subscribed - it's one of
the
side benefits of the
For facebook users:
http://www.facebook.com/FlowerStandard
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Pars Mutaf pars.mu...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
FYI, I designed the following standard myself. It completes IETF RFC 3161.
www.flower-standard.org
Cheers,
Pars Mutaf
Hannes,
On 04/12/2012 08:28, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
Hi Brian,
The point is that we work in public, so the whole community should
know.
Working group mailing lists are also public.
Well yes, but we are talking here about (virtual) meetings.
I regularly attend
Given that there is also open source code, reviewers have the chance
to take a look at that and see the degree of hackiness involved.
Well, yes. It's easy enough to evaluate stuff such as non-descriptive
variable names, messy indenting, and weird comments.
But there's a catch here: There
On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:11, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
I agree with the notion that the primary purpose of the meeting is
discussion. What you and I tell those who present in v6ops is that we want
the presentation to guide and support a discussion, and anything that is pure
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your work, please provide us with feedback while the process of
editing. I was thinking to do something in the future, but thanks that you
will do it.
AB
Folks, There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended
to document common practice in the adoption
Hi Keith,
I hope that participant that travel to the f2f meeting and attend sessions,
do participate while they are there on the discussion lists of IETF WGs,
yes they attend and discuss which is reflected in the minutes report
document, but still there are some time they spend away from their
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
But there's no formal process for that, and I think
that's how we want it to be.
I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process
only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
My question is when do we ask community (from participant level, or
from managerial level) and when we produce an RFC (which purpose)?
I think the answer to this question should be through a
i think we're ratholing here. the point i get is that, if there is open
source code that suppliments the drafts sufficiently to lend confidence
in the implementability and implementation, then progress might be
accelerated.
But the point of running code in our nice, catchy slogan, is that
On 12/04/2012 08:29 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
Exactly. If the presentation is one slide listing the key changes in the
document since the last revision/meeting, and one slide per key question/issue being
asked of the room, then that should help facilitate good discussion, not hinder it.
What
Abdussalam,
By all means send text or suggestions for edits.
Dave and I will include what is reasonable and seek a consensus that agrees with
our motivation for writing the document.
Thanks,
Adrian
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Authors,
The -07 version of this draft has resolved most of the concerns raised by
the Gen-ART review of the -06 version of this draft, with one significant
exception:
[5] Section 2.8 discusses IPv4 accounting at the AFTR, but notes that
the AFTR does not have detailed customer identity
I belive you're drawing a distinction between conference call and
virtual interim which does not presently exist. It could, but doesn't.
No, I am not doing that. I know that we call conference calls virtual interim
meetings.
I also attend various working group meetings during an IETF week
On 12/4/2012 12:51 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
I belive you're drawing a distinction between conference call and
virtual interim which does not presently exist. It could, but doesn't.
No, I am not doing that. I know that we call conference calls virtual interim
meetings.
On Dec 2, 2012, at 12:21 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 08:35 -0800 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
It is not about different dialects of English. There are
people in one part of the world who speak English. There are
people from other parts
Richard Barnes rbar...@bbn.com writes:
Ever try writing an XML app? Half your time is spent writing a .xml parser.
No, see... you're expecting good xml.
use XML::Simple
$x = xmlIn(file.xml);
It's the easiest thing in the world to use. But it doesn't parse
complex without more pain (but
Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca writes:
There is .csv and obviously there is .ics too already.
Didn't know about the CSV; that'd be just fine. .ics is 'too much' in
general though.
--
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.
Hello,
I submitted a draft which discusses about a mailing list protocol
[1]. It is a code of courtesy that the reader may wish to extend to
others to facilitate the exchange of opinions and ideas, and to
facilitate mailing list discussions. Sally Hambridge deserves full
credit for most of
The concept is simple: a time-specific gather is a meeting. Meetings
require prior announcement beyond the working group.
I am not against a meeting announcement. I am suggesting to announce the
meeting where the audience is -- in the working group.
It's a question of costs and benefits. The cost of the IETF Announce
posting is small. There are not that many of them and I don't find
them to be a burden. The benefit in openness and transparency is
large. Thus the answer is simple and the policy should remain as it is
for now. If conditions
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
S Moonesamy
(b) replies to messages which use an odd quoting style [2].
2. http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
[WEG] The referenced program doesn't work for anything 2007 or later (aka
versions
On 12/3/2012 9:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 12/03/2012 08:57 AM, George, Wes wrote:
You have a very specific opinion of what an effective WG session
should be like and what people should and should not be doing to
facilitate such. Sounds like you need to work with the EDU team to
give a
On 4 December 2012 14:19, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
2. http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
[WEG] The referenced program doesn't work for anything 2007 or later (aka
versions still supported by MS), making it of limited use.
I'm happy to share my (crappy)
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Years ago, my impression was that that Sunday training sessions were
pretty much ignored
by anyone experienced in the organization. Is this still the case?
I've been to the
Those are all endpoint implementation problems and thus not subject to IETF
standardization :-)
On 12/04/2012 12:50 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
I started making up really good slides (in a variety of settings)
after noticing non-native-English speakers at the IETF taking
pictures of the screen -- it*really* helped them.
I used to see that also, but I don't recall seeing anyone do that in
On 12/04/2012 09:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The concept is simple: a time-specific gather is a meeting. Meetings
require prior announcement beyond the working group.
I am not against a meeting announcement. I am suggesting to announce the
meeting where the audience is -- in the
On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
But the point of running code in our nice, catchy slogan, is that
running doesn't mean simply that it runs. It means that it's
actually *in use*, possibly for real, but at least in a test lab where
it's getting real use. *Real* running code
The RADIUS EXTensions (radext) working group in the Operations and
Management Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional
information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
RADIUS EXTensions (radext)
Current Status: Active
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'An IKEv2 Extension for Supporting ERP'
draft-nir-ipsecme-erx-09.txt as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: webfin...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webfinger/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
Purpose: Discussion of the Webfinger protocol proposal in the Applications Area.
For
The IESG would like to retract the current Last Call on the following document:
- 'An IKEv2 Extension for Supporting ERP'
draft-nir-ipsecme-erx-09.txt as Experimental RFC
This Last Call was sent in error. The document previously completed Last Call
on
2012-11-26, and does not require a
34 matches
Mail list logo
