Folks-
I thought it would be a good idea to inform the wider IETF community that
I am not planning on applying for another Routing AD term this time.
The reasons are quite simple:
1) I fundamentally believe that IESG rotation is necessary for IETF's
health, and
2) Doing AD job well
John,
I was thinking about whiteboards too. I'll check with the secretariat
if smth like this would be possible.
Thanks.
--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin
Monday, May 2, 2005, 9:30:00 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 02 May, 2005 05:43 -0700 Alex Zinin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
Margaret, Dave, et al-
Based on the discussion started in the IESG, one thing we are going to try
to do in Paris is have a couple of smaller rooms with a different chair
setup--herringbone instead of the theater style, a couple more radio
microphones, and appropriate-size (smaller than huge)
Guys,
The topic is no doubt interesting. We do, however, need to scope the work.
Two routing protocols and a flooding mechanism are already enough for one WG.
Options: a) wait until MANET is done and bring the topic then, and b) create
another mailing list, bring the topic there, see if
The document may apply to other areas of the IETF as well.
Please comment.
--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/
This is a forwarded message
From: Alex Zinin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2004, 10:38:02 PM
Subject: Comments solicited
Kireeti,
What about existing implementations?
--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/
Tuesday, November 4, 2003, 12:09:33 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
Hi Adrian,
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Adrian Farrel wrote:
MTU
This is a 16-bit unsigned integer that represents the MTU in octets
for an
Eric,
Looking at this from the high-level perspective...
Though I became the responsible AD for PPVPN just recently, I was
exposed to certain aspects of interaction between ADs are PPVPN WG
chairs. There was clearly a communication problem there. I believe
it's been solved and we are
announcement will be sent out by the secretariat shortly.
--
Alex Zinin
IETF SUB-IP Area Co-director
Folks-
Having watched this discussion, it seems a couple of data points
might be helpful:
1. L2VPN and L3VPN proposed WGs are part of PPVPN WG split
Creation of L2VPN and L3VPN WG does not represent addition of new
work to the IETF. They are created as part of the process of
Adrian, folks-
I opened a ticket with the secretariat about this error a couple
of days ago:
[iesg-secretary #8150] Wrong Document Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-restart-00.txt
I will ping them again.
--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/
Wednesday, June 18, 2003, 11:56:51 AM, Adrian
Shahram,
I'll follow up with the WG chairs on the issues you brought up here,
and will inform you and the list about the results.
Thank you for reviewing the document.
--
Alex
Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 2:45:35 PM, Shahram Davari wrote:
Since today is the last day of commenting, I just
Shahram,
Since the draft in subject is not specific to the CCAMP or MPLS WGs,
or even the SUB-IP area, may I suggest that we don't abuse the
mailing lists of these WGs and take the discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Alex
Thursday, March 6, 2003, 11:35:16 AM, Shahram Davari wrote:
Hi
RTG AD hat on
Let me try to summarize this discussion.
Part of the discussion was on draft-katz-yeung vs
draft-srisuesh-ospf-te. Based on the following note from Suresh--
Make no mistake. The comments I sent to the IETF were solely
in response to the IETF last call on the katz-yeung
FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat different paths,
but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm personally skeptical at
this moment about SUB-IP becoming a permanent area (area overlaps,
mission statement, expected number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in
Atlanta a strong
Does anyone else see something schizoid about this discussion?
The amount of time and BW people spend on it...
Alex.
15 matches
Mail list logo
