Total of 164 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 21 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.93% | 13 | 6.46% |83622 | stpe...@stpeter.im
6.10% | 10 | 5.81% |75305 |
On 6/21/13 2:38 AM, SM wrote:
At 11:00 20-06-2013, The IAOC wrote:
series of events and programs in South America. This would include:
- Increasing the IETF Fellows and policy makers from the region
I don't see any policy makers reviewing Internet-Drafts. I don't see
any policy makers
* For Week 25 in 2013
About 17 subjects discussed, about 6 IETF LCs, about 3 Gen-Art Review.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Messages | Bytes | Who
+--++--+
1.83% | 3 | 2.01% | 25980 |
AB
Thomas started posting these weekly reports many years
ago as a service to the community to remind us all that
posting to ietf@ietf.org contributes to the information
and work overload of the IETF community as a whole.
The numbers are a reminder to think carefully about what
you send to the
+1 (and that will be my only posting on this subject, I suggest
that if you don't get Stewart's drift you stop sending mails to
the list until you do)
/Loa
On 2013-06-21 15:00, Stewart Bryant wrote:
AB
Thomas started posting these weekly reports many years
ago as a service to the community
Hi Stewart,
I don't have any problem with the report/reminder only that it has missing
important information. The subjects of discussions are not counted, so I
counted them. Also the report does not distinguish between general-posting
and replying to IETF LCs.
AB
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:00
On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:43 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
...
The point, Warren (and others) is that all of these are ICANN
doing technical stuff and even technical standards in a broad
sense of that term. Some of it is stuff that the IETF really
should not want to do (I'm
These are valid points. For a long time, I used a public forum support
reporter for our support process which categorized daily and hourly
messaging patterns, hottest threads and topics and reply efficiency
concepts. Basically to see how many messages were replied to in general
and how many
On 6/21/13 10:46 , John Curran wrote:
I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in
ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition
that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process
of consensus development and approval.
I believe that
It seems to me that you have missed the fact that the IETF is a
volunteer organization. The vast majority of us appreciate that
Thomas creates this summary. If you feel different information
would be useful, then create your own report and share the results,
to at least to see if your version is
--On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:46 -0400 John Curran
jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
...
Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption
that anything that reasonably looks like technical stuff
belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just
make having the right
hi Ben. thanks for your review. comments/replies inline.
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:07 PM
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid
carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think
another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in
which technical considerations imply
On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant
in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some more
technical standards where developed in IETF, and moved forward along
14 matches
Mail list logo
