Dear
IETF-privacy
list,
Please consider submitting to the NDSS First Workshop on DNS Privacy
(DPRIV17)
, as this topic arose from IETF efforts (see below).
The call for papers is here: DPRIV17
be here and it isn't (or possibly I've mis-typed it...), or
if you have any other questions.
Allison Mankin
2013-14 Nomcom Chair
nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org
001 John Scudder, Juniper
002 Stephen Hanna, Juniper
003 Wassim Haddad, Ericsson
004
I'm glad folks have brought this up.
I contacted Jari about this the other day and he has advised me to get
started on the 2013 nomcom volunteer recruiting now, even though we have a
period of overlap with the 2012 nomcom. This happened at least once before;
we have an overriding concern not to
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
I'd like to live in an IETF where we have room for people who do want
to spend a lot of time on all those issues as well as a place where ADs
can take responsibility for the technical work in their area and
minimize
Hi, Russ,
Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport?
Allison
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control
Joe and Fernando,
I just looked at how RFC 5297 is handled in the draft, to be that other
pair of eyes.
The first fix is right, to remove reference to RFC 5297 from that sentence
entirely.
Allison
On Jan 24, 2013 7:19 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 1/24/2013 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont
Transport Directorate review of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but
Wonderful image. IETF Discuss List, The Musical.
I thought very well of Russ's discussion of the statement in Vancouver. I
support signing it.
Allison
On Aug 11, 2012 7:14 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote:
singing this
A good URL for the NSF statistics:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
Also, there's extensive information and analysis about the
educational pipeline in the US (for all groups, and including K12) in
the 2010 American Association of University Women report Why So Few?
Transport Directorate review of draft-mrw-nat66-09.txt
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
are copied to the document's authors for their
TSV-DIR Last Call review of Guidelines for Chosing RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) Canonical Names (CNAMEs)
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but
Review for the Transport Directorate
draft-ietf-mext-flow-bindings-06.txt
2010-05-06
Allison Mankin
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors
data is held, then Section 5.3.4 needs to discuss the pending
data
too.
Allison Mankin / Transport Directorate
Allison Mankin
Division of Computer and Network Systems
National Science Foundation (US)
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
http
, then Section 5.3.4 needs to discuss the pending
data
too.
Allison Mankin / Transport Directorate
Allison Mankin
Division of Computer and Network Systems
National Science Foundation (US)
--- End of Forwarded Message
___
IETF mailing
Hi, all
I'm shepherding - I will talk through the issues with Bernard and Hannes -
did send mail about this, and I've been studying the mail from Bernard.
Hannes, I'm sorry I missed the phone date with you on Tuesday - day job
came up. We should re-group asap; if we could get a handle on where
NEW:
As required by RFC 2026, submit document to IESG for review of
conflicts or confusion with IETF process, end runs around working
group activities, and obvious and significant harm to the Internet
On balance I don't think the 2026 reference is needed - we will say
Hi, Ray, and all,
I read the SOW earlier to check that it matched with the
draft-mankin-pub-req-10 (output of techspec), but I've now
given a read to other matters in the RFP.
If anyone wants to discuss points from this mail other than those
specifics to the RFP, I suppose we should do so on
Ray,
We are working to schedule our events 18 - 24 months in advance to
reduce the inconvenience for you and others.
This is a great advance. If there's some rough stuff about getting
the calendar process in place when we try this for the first time,
people need to remember what an awaited
Ray,
We are working to schedule our events 18 - 24 months in advance to
reduce the inconvenience for you and others.
This is a great advance. If there's some rough stuff about getting
the calendar process in place when we try this for the first time,
people need to remember what an awaited
Having seen quite a few authors surprised by the bounce because the
Copyright Statement still says 2005, I thought I'd remind folks
submitting now to check that theirs are set to 2006.
The -01 deadline is not a fun time to get an auto-bounce.
Allison
Three comments on Friday scheduling:
1.
In my scheduling struggle as AD, I've always needed Fridays pretty
desperately, though I'm hopeful that with the RAI/TSV split, things
will be better.
2.
Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net
didn't come down at noon, so that if
An afternoon social would not be out of place, either, I suspect. Maybe
a beer and gear could be arranged with sponsors.
What a fine idea! Maybe since it would be after the working IETF
time, we could get away with the gear part; to my knowledge
(not perfect) we've historically not agreed to
Jordi,
We should ask the chairs to put the slides on the Meeting
Materials system (where they are available
to everyone outside and inside) at the time of the meeting,
if not before, now that the upload is so easy.
The Working Group Secretaries will get access to the
Meeting Materials system,
I will be stepping down from the AD job in March,
that is, not re-upping as the nomcom does its work now
for TSV and RAI. Doing this service for the IETF
has been a blast but after a number of years,
it's enough service. More importantly, I believe
strongly that the IETF should always grow new
Hi, John,
There are two different IETF IANA registry goals (at least):
- maintenance of protocol parameters by the IANA for
keeping the namespace free of conflict
- policy for the extension of an IETF protocol, which
is expressed by the rules governing the
issuing of new codepoints
Ralph,
Under RFC 2780, IPv6 hop-by-hop option numbers are granted
either with an approved IETF document, or an IESG review.
IANA made the request to IESG under the last option in
RFC 2780, and the IESG did its reviewing within the IESG.
We followed the BCP process. Note that we do not even
have
Brian, and others,
I do have experience of WGs that care about DS.
Preparing implementation reports has been viewed as
important for the protocol.
TSV has several in that process now.
Allison
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
establish joint
activities.
If a personal invitation letter is needed, please contact Allison
Mankin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) immediately, who will arrange for an
invitation from the ITU Secretariat.
IETF organizing committee:
Loa Andersson, IAB
Scott Bradner, IETF Liaison to ITU-T
Scott Brim, IETF Liaison
Kurt, all,
Sorry these comments are so late. I hope they will be read,
though, since I've been deployed on so many IETF operations...
I reviewed the BCP draft on the IAD role, and what I think the IAD position
should be like. My major issue with the job description is that it
makes the IAD too
Folks,
Good stuff here, but...
I'd like to put in a plug for making it a mandatory* principle
that the IETF end up in no-restrictions possession of data contents from
the databases and websites from any contractors.
This is different from specifics about what tools are used, open source
etc,
Scott,
see no reason that the ISOC folk can not be full partners in evaluation
processes with the IAD (and IAOC) making the final decisions - anything
less is willfully putting the IAD, IAOC and ISOC in a non optimum place.
I understand that the general desire is for the IAD to operate
Carl,
Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
Trustees may be required for some contracts, in order to provide
a single point of focus in support of the IASA, primary responsibility
for the evaluation, review, and negotiation of contracts and other
IETF
Scott,
I think that my main point was not clear enough - the current
wording implies that ISOC folk (accountant, President/CEO, lawyer,
etc - but not BoT) are not permitted be part of the RFP response review
process and are not primitted to warn the IAD and IAOC that the contractor
they
Hi, all,
DC has become quite a fine restaurant city, since the last
time IETF came by. There's a nice selection of twenty-five
DC restaurants, suitable for the nights without sessions,
or late meals, included in a dining guide published October 17
by the Washington Post's lead critic:
We have added a mailing list for this BOF and updated
the agenda.
Transport Service at Intermediary BOF (intersec)
Friday, March 21 at 0900-1130
==
CHAIR: Allison Mankin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive
Quoting two parts of Christian's message:
It is true that HTTP is the only transport defined in the SOAP
specification, but SOAP can be mapped to a variety of transports,
including direct mapping over TCP or UDP. Do we really believe that
carrying SOAP over BEEP is better than carrying it
Dave,
At 01:33 PM 9/10/2001, Allison Mankin wrote:
Why not use this Last Call discussion
to bring out the issues of SOAP directly over TCP rather over
BEEP
Allison,
The most simple and direct answer to your question is that the
specification that has been put forward
Danny, Lloyd,
Having just been through this with midcom, may I suggest to Danny
and Luca that [EMAIL PROTECTED] opt out of the member-only posting
option on the IETF's mailman?
Allison (one of the co-ADs for both midcom and the proposed pwot).
I think this must be syncronized with the work of the PILC wg. See
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html.
Patrik, thanks for drawing attention to this. Other activities
in the same arena that TSV has going on are ROHC and a proto-working
group (we'll be airing a draft charter
39 matches
Mail list logo
