Hi,
I am having sever difficulty parsing all of the information from your comment.
And currently cannot see anything actionable by the authors.
The draft does not list ITU in abbreviation,
Loa has answered why this is not necessary.
there are many terminology not clear but more general
Abdussalam Baryun said:
I am part of the community design team as well because
I participate with community more than the private hidden
groups. I think that the draft is a true work open to IETF. I
still did not get a reply to my request to know what is the
DT authority, very strange name
Hi Pete,
At this point, a working week through the four week last call, I am wondering
whether the volume of comments and changes merit waiting for a revised version
before I do a last call review, or whether I should dive in with the current
version and risk raising a number of points already
Hi Chris,
I have become confused between the permission necessary to republish the Tao,
and the request to republish under a Creative Commons license.
Can I try to clarify.
Do we or do we not grant permission for others to publish the Tao and the
translations of the Tao under section 3c of the
Curiously these numbers do not match those at
https://www.ietf.org/meeting/past.html
Registration, we may conclude, does not equate to attendance.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Abley
Sent: 08 October 2013 02:38
Thanks for this document which was surprisingly readable.
I have a number of comments from my AD review, but they are all
trivial and can be handled as IETF last call comments.
Thanks,
Adrian
---
Nurit will want to change the minor details or her affiliation.
---
Abstract
Expand MPLS-TP and
Not to detract from your point, Michael, but
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=nomcomrfcs=onsort= is pretty
good.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: 01 October 2013 19:29
To:
Hi John,
Thanks for the additions.
Everything you say seems fine to me for the cases you are
focusing on, but I hope that any changes to 4020bis keep two
things in mind lest we find ourselves tangled in rules and
prohibiting some reasonable behavior (a subset of which is used
now).
4020bis
Hi,
I am working with Michelle on responses and updates after IETF last call. Most
of the issues give rise to relatively easy changes, and Michelle can handle them
in a new revision with a note saying what has changed and why.
But Eric's email gives rise to a wider and more difficult point on
Tom,
Not a complete answer but look in RFC 4020 (especially 3.3) and
draft-cotton-rfc4020bis (currently in IETF last call).
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.p.
Sent: 29 August 2013 12:56
To: ietf
Subject: Deprecate
That would be great.
Should 4020bis have a gating normative reference on 5226bis?
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michelle Cotton
Sent: 29 August 2013 15:53
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); t.p.; ietf
Subject: Re:
-
From: ccamp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:51 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: cc...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt
(Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS
As sponsoring AD I have the following last call comments I hope you will take on
board.
Thanks,
Adrian
Please fix the two lines that are too long (see idnits)
---
Please expand OTN on first use in the main text.
Please expand TS on its first use.
---
6.2
The ingress node of an LSP MAY
Hi Ray,
Thanks for the reminder.
Meta-nit
The document seems unsure whether to say Internet Draft or Internet-Draft.
---
Nits:
Para 2
The RPC is one of the distinct components of the RFC Editor. The primary
responsibility for the RPC is to edit approved Internet Drafts to a consistent
high
I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the end of working days of 5
in each
week).
There are seven days in most weeks, in my experience.
I suggested to Thomas to submit report in end of Friday
I suggest that anyone who wants something different simply writes code for
something
Hi Chris,
Issue #1
We have recently been asked permission to
republish the TAO with a creative commons
license, but unfortunately the current trust
agreement does not give the trustees the
rights to do this
It doesn't? You have the right to license existing and future
Mutter.
IETF 87
It was warm in Berlin
IETF 84
Hot sun. Got sunburn on Saturday before IETF
IETF 70
Snowed a little in Vancouver. Reasonable skiing the week after.
IETF 64
Rain, rain, more rain. Got very wet feet walking from non-IETF hotel. Bought
boots.
Adrian
-Original Message-
Clarifications on Lunch Options at the InterContinental:
Grab-N-Go is only available at the Marlene Bar. A limited variety of salads
and
currywurst will be available.
And it was tasty.
But turned out to be grab and wait for it to be prepared by a caring and
meticulous chef
Adrian
Mary,
I appreciate your work on this document, but I don't know where or how to draw
the line.
Personally, I will strongly try to be vegetarian, but eat meat rather than
starve (a situation that arises when travelling).
But I will also try to eat fairly traded produce, and also try to reduce the
Personally, I will strongly try to be vegetarian, but eat meat
rather than starve (a situation that arises when travelling).
if a venue is chosen that forces you (or me or others) into
a meat or starve or, much worse, eat something severely
damaging to health or beliefs or starve
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 July 2013 20:49
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: John C Klensin; draft-barnes-healthy-f...@tools.ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-barnes-healthy-food-07.txt
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Personally, I
This message is reply to an author of a new draft under ietf discussion.
If this list is not the correct place to discuss such matter, then the
list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to
discuss such new work.
I have no idea what a list's responsible chair is, but there
Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom participation
greatly increases the probability that our culture will fracture, and
our mission statement lose meaning, before we have a chance to agree
on what they should become. I supported the proposal to require a few
There is a new non-working group mailing list for discussion of Network Service
Chaining (NSC)
The web page for users is:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsc
There is also an email-based interface for users. You can get info about using
it by sending a message with just the word
We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment
from Adrian during IETF LC (which we wanted to address in the previous
revision, but forgot about it). We added a new section that can
trigger future work, as requested by Adrian.
I don't see that Adrian requested a
related to the I-D.
AB
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote:
Hi Adrian,
I personally agree that adding an informational ref to
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my
co-authors.
Thanks
Ulrich
On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian
I find it somewhat disruptive that this email raises new questions on a draft
authored in a working group in which you participate, and that it has arrived
after the end of IETF last call.
I see a series of questions in this message, but no suggested textual changes. I
therefore conclude that you
Sorry to everyone for the noise this thread is creating.
Multiple questions that I have to answer.
It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on.
Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has
objected to the current text in section 8.
The
Thanks Lloyd,
I doubt that we should make commentary on IRTF practices, but you are right that
it would help to clarify This document applies to the IETF stream only (i.e.,
not the IAB, IRTF, or Independent streams)
Thanks,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Development Dept.
+81-(0)80-5945-9138 | www.kddi.com
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:20 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls
Hi Abdussalam,
I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward reference
to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec
Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently specified,
it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in progress
that
OK, I think Dave and I are going to discuss this.
I see a wedge :-)
The problem is where to stop.
I completely agree that the current I-D does not cover everything and I can see
that *some* things can usefully be added.
OTOH, if we don't draw lines, mission creep will lead us, step-by-step,
Hi Melinda,
Funny, but I agree.
To be honest at this point I'm sort of reflexively
anti-process-documents, unless there's an actual problem
that needs actual solution.
Which is why this isn't a process document.
The origin is a WG chairs Edu session. Turns out there was not a lot of clarity
Which is why this isn't a process document.
Are you sure?
Oooh, a quiz. I like quizzes.
Let me see. Yes or no. Hmmm.
Yes, I'm sure.
Your turn now.
Are you sure?
Ciao,
Adrian
Hi,
This thread is helpful to me.
This is somewhat of a vicious cycle -- operators participate
less, and so the IETF understands less about how their
networks run. This leads to solutions that don't understand
the real world, and so operators lose faith/interest in IETF,
and
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for
publication.
We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns
associated with this part of the process. We are
Hi,
Here are my review comments as responsible AD. Because they are minor comments,
I am entering them as part of IETF last call rather than getting them fixed
before last call. That should expedite the publication a little.
Thanks,
Adrian
===
idnits shows a couple of issues with your
In the interests of moving the document forward more briskly, here are my
comments as responsible AD.
Thanks,
Adrian
---
I know it is not the intent of this document to propose solutions or
mitigations to any of the threats described. However, I think two things
would be useful:
1. Please add
1:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Suppose the AD raised her concern by writing a Comment or sending an email
and
balloting No Objection. That would mean that the I-D would be approved for
publication.
At this point either:
- the discussion goes on, but the document becomes an RFC anyway
The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that are
intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have been
raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may
unnecessarily delay the document from completing the publication
Well said, Thomas.
Two concrete suggestions:
1) have WGs do the managing role more proactively
2) mentor authors and others a bit more to encourage them how best to
operate
Which I suspect means...
0) have ADs manage/mentor the WG chairs more proactively.
Almost certainly a case of if I
1) have WGs do the managing role more proactively
Provide WG Chairs the monitoring tools they need to be proactive - Action
Tracker, what do I need to do today data tracker views. Same for AD.
Same for authors and their mentors, if any.
Wouldn't work for me. YMMV.
Adrian
Hi Fred,
I'm in complete agreement with you, but... :-)
Before investing in a common set of tools to archive implementation information,
I wanted to see whether there was *any* intention to make that information
available.
Thus, this is a baby-step towards the end result that you and I wold
Hi AB,
Thanks for your review.
IMHO, we should not request to delete this proposed
section, but it can be shifted to the Appendix section when published.
Removing the section is like doing some work in IETF and then
destroying it, future reviewers/implementers may not know why it was
Hi SM,
I have read every word in this document multiple times mainly in the
order they were written. :-)
Hmmm, you can't be sure what order we wrote them. You can only know what order
they are presented in :-)
In Section 1:
The scope of the intended experiment is all Internet-Drafts
On 19 April 2013 at 12:22 Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote
on this list:
No name in the AD list appear so far, but if your the discuss-list is
right then it may be good progress, hoping for more names for
diversity.
I count three ADs on the diversity discussion list at the
The perception is important.
It probably shows many things including attendance is not participation.
Just for the completely unscientific hell of it, I just counted up the mic-sex
in CCAMP's marathon meetings in Orlando. I counted minuted interventions and
presentations. I counted each
Hi Ian,
Examples are useful because they give the IESG something to chew on. If you
don't call us when we do bad stuff we might never know.
Examples can be dangerous because we can rat-hole into the specific rather than
the general, but i would like to use your example as data point to get some
And that should, of course, have read Hi Lloyd
Sorry about that, Lloyd.
The rest of the message still stands.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
Farrel
Sent: 11 April 2013 22:18
To: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
Cc: ietf
Joe,
In my address book I also have i...@ref-editor.org and
n.brown...@auckland.ac.nz both cc'ed here.
Looking at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat/ the I-D
state is Response to Review Needed as you noted. I don't have an key to the
ISE states, but this one would seem to
Hi,
[snipping out some useful points]
We had considered what you suggest below, and indeed I typed it up in a recent
email to Yaron before deleting it again.
Yes, we could do what you suggest, but as you found, it requires a kind of
meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and
So instead of asking the community do you have an intention to implement and
deploy? we should ask have you already been going to have implemented and
deployed yet?
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are
deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started
Mary,
I need to check but...
[MB] What I find interesting is that there was 200+ newcomers, but I
certainly didn't find that many at the meet and greet. I have to
wonder whether this doesn't have to do with the overlap between Sunday
tutorials and this event. I think that needs to be
*and* the chairs would want to
be at both sessions.
Adrian
On Thu 14/03/13 12:34 PM , Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com sent:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Adrian Farrel adrian@ol
ddog.co.uk wrote: Mary,
I need to check but...
[MB] What I find interesting is that there
was 200
FWIW, the IETF home page has a link (top left) for Chat Live with the IETF
Community
In the 6 months that I used to turn up there regularly, I saw very few other
people, but did handle
a couple of relatively newbie questions.
I offer this only as a data point to inform subsequent work.
Adrian
I kind of promised I would not get sucked into this particular rat hole, but...
The problem is with the poorly scoped use of the word diversity.
It is clear from some research that certain types of increased diversity do
increase the quality of decision-making.
It is also clear from rational
Hi,
Here are some comments resulting from my reading of draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea.
I chose to review the -03 version.
Hope they are useful.
Adrian
===
In several places, this document is careful to state that the text
represents the personal view of the author (Section 4 Process vs.
Well, is that a meta-judgment call?
I took the view that the full process expressed in draft-farrell-ft could not be
done by the IESG at their discretion. That is, that some of the steps proposed
constituted a significant variation from documented processes or
well-established behavior. Thus, it
Hi,
This email terminates (prematurely) the IETF last call on draft-farrell-ft.
It is clear to me that this document will not be advanced for further IESG
evaluation without considerable further work and a subsequent IETF last call.
There is no point in continuing this IETF last call.
In no way
Hello,
Sorry I missed your last paragraph in the snow storm.
So, Adrian, noting the ratio between discussion of this draft on
the IETF list in the last few weeks and discussions of
everything else, how long does professional courtesy to another
IESG member (presumably in combination with
Just to help this along a bit...
The IPR WG was concluded in November 2008. However, the mailing list remained
active for the discussion of IPR issues: subscribe via
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg.
The list archive is at
Hi Alexa,
Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week IETF last
call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under the rules
of RFC 3933.
The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take specific actions
under certain circumstances in corner
Lou's view matches how I write and review documents.
I would add that there is sometimes value in using 2119-style language in
requirements documents (The protocol solution MUST enable transmission of
data...) although, in my opinion, this requires a tweak to the normal2119
boilerplate.
Adrian
I'm interested in this idea.
However, I note that an implementation status section of a document is frozen
in time when a document goes to RFC.
I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to IPR
disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation
is not appropriate
in an
RFC.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I'm interested in this idea.
However, I note that an implementation status section of a document is
frozen
in time when a document goes to RFC.
I wonder whether we could leverage our
.
Yaron
On 12/13/2012 05:10 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
How about...
Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as a
starting
point. Duplicate documentation in wiki may be useful and provide a place to
track text for inclusion in the next revision.
When/if inclusion
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
We could certainly say this. It is a true statement.
However, the document is trying to talk about WG I-Ds, not to provide a general
description of everything the IETF and RFC Editor ever does.
Is it false to say:
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Just picking at one point...
According to some RFC:
All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
a session starts.
If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions
during
Dale said:
One way to build up enough credibility
to get respected people to answer you is to do thankless jobs. In
most WGs, there are never enough people who are willing to read and
provide detailed critiques of drafts. (And believe me, almost all
drafts need significant improvements of
I think you miss the point of This summary is only meant to point you in the
right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set
forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully.
That point is: this Note Well is not intended to reproduce the entirety of
BCP79.
Adrian
Trimming SM's email...
There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet
Society next year. Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies
or to fix the deficit? One argument made was that the fees have not
been increased over the last years. I'll point out that there
...@juniper.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Action: Rechartered Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Farrel afar...@juniper.net
To: 't.p.' daedu...@btconnect.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 5:43 PM
Hello Tom.
Charter text
Assigned Area Director:
Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
Mailing list
Address: rtg-...@ietf.org
To Subscribe: rtg-bfd-requ...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/
Charter of Working Group:
The BFD Working Group is chartered to standardize
Barry,
If you believe that a change to process is necessary to make a ruling on
absentee-ism, then you will also (on reflection) believe that process changes
cannot be made retro-active.
So, rushing this through (I do not mean to be pejorative in my use of rushing)
will not actually help the
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
Yes, with regret. Marshall has done a lot of good stuff for us over the years,
and I hope he is well and functioning.
However, Marshall filled a community-appointed post on
Good idea, but suggest to go wider than your a-d and stick to:
anyone who was part
of the IETF community.
In practice, that will mean, anyone who someone else thinks was a part of the
community.
It would not be seemly to squabble about whether someone had really played a
significant part in
Thanks for the revision, Joel.
My greatest take-away is the phrase you suggest might be a tautology...
Interim meetings probably are more
successful when they appear necessary
In general, WGs feel they must meet at full IETF meetings, and they are
well-attended because everyone is there
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
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? Should
I have participated in the discussions leading to this version of the
document, and support its publication as an RFC. However, I have two
small editorial proposals and two typos that I would like to see
polished.
Thanks,
Adrian
---
Section 1
RFC 3777 specifies that sitting members of the
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
(My problem was not that draft expiry makes the process more complicated, but
that the chairs didn't notice the expiry and I can't blame them.)
Well, the system does send out automatic reminders (entitled Expiration
Impending: draft-foo) to all authors and copied to the WG chairs.
So not
Carsten sed:
I'm not an expert for this, but, as far as I am aware of, it has not been
possible to productively participate in e-mail conversations using Outlook.
You're right, Carsten. Nothing I have done in the last 10 years has been in any
way productive.
Adrian
Hi Ted,
I think an I-D can be removed from the I-D directory by replacing it with
another I-D (possibly with null content, or possibly with tombstone text) using
existing process.
Cheers,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hi John,
This discussion of DMCA is useful to me as a non-US resident.
Are we sure that the boilerplate included in I-Ds does not constitute a
statement by the authors that they have not, as far as they are aware,
infringed any copyright? In other words, isn't the boilerplate a pre-emptive
...@labn.net]
Sent: 30 August 2012 15:28
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext@tools.ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org;
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Fwd: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-04
Adrian,
Shout (or change the ID state) when you're ready for the update
I consulted with the writer of this email about copying to the IETF list and he
asked the IESG to decide. I believe that it is helpful that technical comments
be aired in public, therefore I am forwarding an edited version of his email.
Authors, please include this in the responses that you will
Hi Abdussalam,
Thank you for your review comments on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt
I see seven separate points raised in separate emails. Can you confirm that this
is the totality of your comments.
I also note that the seventh email was sent to only the IESG. May I have your
permission to
Hi,
I have one discussion point and a number of small nits...
Cheers,
Adrian
---
Discussion point.
The Abstract makes it clear that the purpose of the document is to
handle the (new) IAOC and to resolve uncertainty about liaisons and
ex-officio members of the IAB, IESG, and IAOC.
This seems
How about asking Heather for the appropriate term?
Seems easier than guessing :-)
A
-Original Message-
From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 August 2012 20:45
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibil...@tools.ietf.org;
ietf@ietf.org
Thanks Roni,
Good catches.
Adrian
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni
Even
Sent: 13 August 2012 22:07
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05
I
Hi Russ,
I am conscious that this text needs to have the consensus of the three groups
planning to co-sign, and we also need consensus of the IETF community that you
sign it.
Given the first of these, I think the question you ask is Are there strong
objections? not Could we wordsmith this so we
A Change to the interpretation of normative language does not
retroactively apply to existing documents.
Shucks! Really?
I was hoping I could automatically change the behavior of deployed routers by
updating the meaning of some words in published RFCs. You mean I can't do that?
A
Barry,
Did you mean bad or BAD?
A
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
I written this draft starting a
OF SALT
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Barry,
Did you mean bad or BAD?
A
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun
All,
Please note this last call was re-started to handle a downref I missed first
time around.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: manet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:manet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
The IESG
Sent: 29 July 2012 00:28
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: ma...@ietf.org
Subject:
Please read the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 29 June 2012 16:35
To: david.bl...@emc.com
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review
I've always found that term in that context highly presumptuous and slightly
offensive.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
edj@gmail.com
Sent: 15 June 2012 22:43
To: Eric Burger; ietf-boun...@ietf.org; IETF Chair
Tony,
Is there a need to draw a line (over which we will, no doubt, manage to fight in
the future)?
Can we not just say that updates will be batched and approved in a timely
fashion, and know that updates will receive as much review and discussion as
the community thinks they merit?
Adrian
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
