Just FYI that I wrote another article, this time on permissionless innovation
and the role of open standards. We've talked about these topics earlier, but
this has been on my mind recently - I've been traveling in recent weeks and
talking about the roles of various organisations and styles of
Few thoughts.
1) don't get wrapped around the axel of STD, PS, Foo bar label, it has nothing
to do with the problem that that IESG believes many drafts need changes to fix
significant problems. Lots of people imply that the IESG is setting the bar too
high but when you look at the changes
On May 14, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) flu...@cisco.com
wrote:
2) On the point of what the IESG should be doing, I would like to see the
whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria document and will stay
within that (or change it if they disagree). The cross area
Just to echo in some form what others have said, I believe that an
intermediate stage between I-D and RFC is needed.
I don't have a name for it, but conceptually would be something like
'feature freeze', e.g. no more tweakings to the protocol, or base spec
are to be introduced (unless a major
inline
On May 14, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) flu...@cisco.com
wrote:
2) On the point of what the IESG should be doing, I would like to see the
whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria document
On 5/14/2013 6:58 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
when you look at the
changes that are made to drafts from point they go in, to point they
come out of IESG it seems to be a rare example where people don't
agree that major changes were an improvement and needed.
This is an important
Hi Cullen,
On 05/14/2013 02:58 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
I would like to see the whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria
document and will stay within that (or change it if they disagree).
That I'm pretty sure is the case. When I started as a new AD
one of the first
On 5/11/13 10:17 , SM wrote:
At 18:36 10-05-2013, David Conrad wrote:
...
Is it up to the IETF to set up a one-stop shop for personal data
requests?
I suspect not, but I suspect it isn't up to the IETF to dictate global
privacy policy either.
Section 2 is about the goals for distributing
Hi,
On May 14, 2013, at 11:02 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
The third goal you refer to focuses on the need for accurate registration
information ... in order to meet a variety of operational requirements. I
believe this to be a valid technical concerns of the IETF, it is difficult
I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except
for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common
sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are guidance,
not rules.
Also, everybody needs to take the word discuss literally. An
entirely possible outcome
From: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net
Just FYI that I wrote another article, this time on permissionless
innovation and the role of open standards.
A nice summary!
No permit had to be applied [for], no new network had to be built,
and no commercial negotiation with other parties was
Brian, et al.,
On 5/14/2013 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except
for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common
sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are guidance,
not rules.
Also, everybody needs
On 5/14/2013 10:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
And a Discuss should be required to assert which criteria apply and how.
+1
Joe
Joe,
On 05/14/2013 09:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
As important as the DISCUSS criteria are, there are NON-DISCUSS criteria
that ought to be more carefully followed - including the point that
disagreements with the WG or clarifications are not justification for
DISCUSS.
I had assumed that the
On 5/14/2013 1:59 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Joe,
On 05/14/2013 09:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
As important as the DISCUSS criteria are, there are NON-DISCUSS criteria
that ought to be more carefully followed - including the point that
disagreements with the WG or clarifications are not
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 04:37:11PM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
The critical difference is that the IETF is an organization of
*buyers* rather than an organization of *sellers*.
Without wishing to be nasty, I will point out that we have way more
vendors than operators participating in our
On May 14, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
I've not found that a real problem. When its happened that we
did turn up something bigger than we thought after the telechat
(and updating your discuss points before or during the telechat
is considered fair game)
It seems to me that if it is really a discussion, then there may be many
possible things which could resolve it, and the AD raising the question
may not know exactly what is feasible to clear it. Otherwise it is a
demand, not a discussions. And in my experience while ADs can be pushy
(like
On 5/14/2013 3:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It seems to me that if it is really a discussion, then there may be many
possible things which could resolve it, and the AD raising the question
may not know exactly what is feasible to clear it. Otherwise it is a
demand, not a discussions. And in
Below:
On 5/14/2013 6:04 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/14/2013 3:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It seems to me that if it is really a discussion, then there may be many
possible things which could resolve it, and the AD raising the question
may not know exactly what is feasible to clear it.
On May 14, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable. If there is no way
to address it, then it is not a discuss. But required to clar is the wrong
picture as far as I can tell.
Exactly right. It would actually be
On 5/14/2013 3:12 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com
wrote:
At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable. If there
is no way to address it, then it is not a discuss. But required
to clar is the wrong picture as far as I can tell.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 03:30:52PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
And of course, that's still everyone's preference. But the reality is
that the imposition of the Discuss is an assertion that changes are
being required.
For reference, that milder uses of Discuss, which is something akin to
On May 14, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
And of course, that's still everyone's preference. But the reality is
that the imposition of the Discuss is an assertion that changes are
being required.
No, it absolutely is not. That may have been the theory when you were
On May 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Dear Dave,
Thank you for your thoughtful review, it was most helpful. I have updated the
draft in hopes of adding greater clarity and to address your concerns.
The new information not available to the WG at the time is how
On 5/14/2013 3:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
To be fair, for what it's worth as a WG chair I've had the latter
experience at least as often as the former in the use of DISCUSS, and
I've observed some DISCUSSes cleared without any change at all to the
document in question.
We suffer a
And your bottom line is exactly what te rules say, what I said, what Ted
said, and what Joe agreed is reasonable. It also matchesthe practice I
have seen. Even the discuss that I had a lot of arguments with did
include proposals for paths forward. Sometimes they were ard to
understand.
On 5/14/2013 4:03 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
If the authors think that the goal is to please the AD, something's
wrong. This would suggest that they will just do what the AD says
without debate, which is exactly the wrong thing. The whole point of
a DISCUSS is to have a discussion. Frankly, it's
On May 14, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
That is what happens exactly because the DISCUSS holds up the document, and
most ADs don't want to burn time stalling their documents if there's a way
around that delay.
It can only happen if an author values getting their document
I'll say that about a year and a half ago I found myself pushing back on
discusses
that in my opinion clearly were not within the discuss criteria
significantly more than I ever had to do as an AD. My role was as WG
chair/editor.
Interestingly it's been less of an issue in my experience lately.
On 05/14/2013 06:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/14/2013 3:12 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com
wrote:
At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable. If there
is no way to address it, then it is not a discuss. But required
to clar
On 05/14/2013 04:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Brian, et al.,
On 5/14/2013 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except
for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common
sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are
The IETF nominating committee (nomcom) process for 2013-14 is under way. The
IETF nomcom appoints folks to fill the open slots on the IAOC, the IAB,
and the IESG. Ten voting members for the nomcom are selected in a verifiably
random way from a pool of volunteers. The more volunteers, the better
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6939
Title: Client Link-Layer Address Option in DHCPv6
Author: G. Halwasia, S. Bhandari,
W. Dec
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6946
Title: Processing of IPv6 Atomic Fragments
Author: F. Gont
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: May 2013
Mailbox:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6947
Title: The Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Alternate Connectivity (ALTC) Attribute
Author: M. Boucadair, H. Kaplan,
R. Gilman, S.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6949
Title: RFC Series Format Requirements and
Future Development
Author: H. Flanagan, N. Brownlee
Status: Informational
Stream: IAB
37 matches
Mail list logo
