It is clear to me that the IETF cannot be away from Internet Governance
discussions. Yes, it is politics and we do not like politics, but that
is the way the Internet is these days.
It is also appears that we do not have consensus of how to participate
and what to say in those
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
That is not good for the IETF and it reflects that we are not ready for
the dynamics of the Internet that we created.
.as
On 10/10/13 3:49 PM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate
:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's
model of his job
We appointed our leaders, we have to trust them. They had to do a call,
an important one and they made it.
I support what they did, that is what we chose them for, to represent
us and be our voice. We cannot expect that they ask our opinion for
every decision they made, that is
Hi,
I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation
for this BoF:
igovupdate
I am not sure what are the proper channels for the request but I think
it would be very valuable for remote participants to attend this meeting
(including me that won't go to
to the room
microphones.
The BoF chairs (yet to be determined) or the AD MAY request that the meeting
be covered with MeetEcho or WebEx. That's up to them, so you might want to
contact Jari about this.
Yoav
On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:12 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
On 9/12/13 3:02 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
3) A relying party thus requires a demonstration that is secure against a
replay attack from one or more trusted parties to be assured that the time
assertion presented is current but this need not necessarily be the same
On 9/9/13 5:17 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
It might be worth thinking about why ssh and ssl work so well, and PGP/GPG
don't.
Because normally with SSL and SSH the complexity is in the server,
not the client. When the client needs to verify the identity of some
site with SSL we have the
On 9/6/13 4:47 AM, Adam Novak wrote:
On 09/05/2013 08:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Tell me what the IETF could be doing that it isn't already doing.
I'm not talking about what implementors and operators and users should
be doing; still less about what legislators should or shouldn't
On 9/5/13 6:01 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
On 9/4/13, IAB Chair iab-ch...@ietf.org wrote:
As requested by the community, the IAB has decided to open a mailing list
to
discuss topics regarding the intersection of Internet governance and IETF
technical work. In particular, this list will
Now I get it!!
A Spanglish translation would be It depends how the rides in the
carnival goes for you (Depende como te va en la feria)
/as
sorry for the offtopic
On 8/26/13 1:54 PM, Dave Aronson wrote:
As my mother used to say What you lose on the roundabouts
you
Kathleen,
Great idea, great job!
Congratulations.
Best regards,
as
On 8/21/13 10:16 AM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
Hello,
Sometime before Berlin, I had suggested the use of a video to provide an
overview of current work within a working group to see if that might
Academic might work. Open source not so much as other mentioned. Does
Big Corporation doing Open Source apply?
I was tempted to propose non-profit, but also there are organizations
with large budgets. And profit driven ones with not much money.
/as
On 8/18/13 6:21 AM, SM wrote:
Well, we just had a technical session about Real Time web.
This seems to me like the perfect application to show and eat own dog
food.
Regards,
as
On 8/16/13 9:07 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
The next step up from our current jabber-scribe model is to have audio input
In some parts of the world there are good engineers that get $100 for a
week as salary.
Charging remote participation will raise the bar even more for people
that cannot travel and their only way to participate is in mailing lists
and remotely.
Providing good remote
Or eat less cookies. :)
Now, seriously. I think in your case, it was just bad luck to chair to
meetings one after the other.
For the rest, taking punctuality more seriously would help.
As you said, time is scarce and I prefer to use it in meetings than in
On 8/2/13 3:39 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
AFAIK, you can only get a VAT refund for GOODS you take with you, not
for the VAT on goods or services consumed in country.
Janet
If I print the slides of the WG that I attend, does it do the trick?
:D
as
AFAIK anyone can participate. You just have to said I.
Regards,
as
On 7/31/13 2:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I would prefer that the design team are selected by diversity
parameters ( gender, region, age, necomer-oldcomer, etc). Thanks again,
Jari, Peter
Thanks for the article. It is really welcomed to see that diversity
is something that the IETF is taking really seriously.
Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to
enable comments, isn't it?
I think that it would be good to
Captchas? Recaptchas?
Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
Regards,
as
On 7/30/13 4:34 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Arturo:
Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to
enable comments, isn't it?
Yes, that has been issue that has
On 7/30/13 4:42 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Captchas? Recaptchas?
Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
Yes, Akismet helps a lot.
But this is probably a better topic for the tools-discuss list, eh? ;-)
Peter
Peter,
I
Why during the F2F IETF meeting?
It seems that is not a good way to use the time of an AD during the F2F
IETF meeting. I think is a good idea to provide people remote-access to
ADs, but doing it during the F2F IETF meeting does not look like a good
use of resources.
/as
On
.
Regards,
as
On 7/28/13 3:20 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
That may work as well.
It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material
available.
The important is to have discussion-material
On 7/13/13 12:27 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
FWIW, I think for most larger companies with multi-billion dollar
revenues streams it is less about the up-front fees to apply
operationalize a gTLD than the long term
Great document, I really liked.
Same as SM I would suggest change western for something else.
And I would also suggest to move section 4 before explaining the
titles. I guess the reading would be much easier.
Regards,
as
On 7/10/13 9:55 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Deng Hui,
At
On 7/11/13 10:58 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
I have a question: I think I've seen Chinese names written in both
orders. That is, sometimes Hui Deng will be written Deng Hui. Am I
right? Does this happen often? What is the most common order? Is there a
way to guess what order a name is written
Hello,
I was checking the deadlines for submitting drafts. Clear it is
Monday 15th July but it does not say the time.
Thanks,
as
On 7/3/13 2:17 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
Please note that for IETF 87, there is only one deadline for draft
submission: Monday 15th July. Previously, there had
:53 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Hello,
I was checking the deadlines for submitting drafts. Clear it is
Monday 15th July but it does not say the time.
Thanks,
as
On 7/3/13 2:17 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
Please note that for IETF 87, there is only one deadline for draft
submission: Monday
SM,
I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in
remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody
attended
I have a general question.
What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?
- That nomcom participants know the IETF
- That nomcom participant know in person people appointed to IESG,
IAB, etc
- To avoid game/abuse the system by an organization?
.
Regards,
as
On 6/27/13 12:59 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?
Acculturation: the opportunity over time to absorb the IETF culture and
become a part
Yes, but instead of 150 volunteers from other organizations we could
have 500. So the probabilities are back to the same.
/as
On 6/27/13 4:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I believe the proposal as stated would further exacerbate that problem - not
for a given company, but for pretty much
I checked the call for nommitantios (Sent on april 24th 2013 on the
ietf-announce) and it does not describe what should be the
qualifications of the candidates. I think that this enough to alienate
new people (as they may think that they are not good candidates for the
position because of
reviews of the RFSE performance.
4) Working with the RSE and the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
(IAOC) on the statements of work for contracts related to the RFC
Production Center and RFC Publisher.
Russ
On 6/25/13 5:10 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
I checked the call for nommitantios
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
Thank you Bob and the IAOC for taking the time to analize the
possiblities of a meeting outside North America, Europe and Asia.
Independently of the result, I think it had been a good opportunity
for many of us to take advantage of the momentum and to initiate some
actions to promote the
Para los interesados.
Slds
as
Original Message
Subject:[ISOC] Applications open for ISOC Fellowship to IETF 88
(Vancouver)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:02:37 +
From: Steve Conte co...@isoc.org
To: isoc-members-annou...@elists.isoc.org
Ignore!
Wrong list. Jetlag.
my apologies,
as
Dave,
We created an IETF-TF in LACNOG; as you we also think that only a
meeting is not enough and along with ISOC, ccTLDs, LACNIC and other
organizations we are trying to encourage and prepare more people to
participate in the IETF by sending comments, reviewing documents and
writing RFCs.
I have mixed opinions, filters in general work well (some false
positives like these ones that are moved to my Last Call filter) but
in general it is ok.
But I would not oppose to a new list for LC only.
Regards,
as
On 6/7/13 4:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think that IETF
Masataka,
On 6/1/13 6:51 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
dumb devices that only need to know their network and gateway to be
No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
the same IP to two or three different hosts. It was a nightmare.
With IPX, AT address assignment was automatic. No DHCP in those old
times.
Kind of.
Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by
tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address
was not as important as a central port to give IP address. So both
solutions would seem useful to me at that time (as I said I
On 5/31/13 9:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I don't know what the smiley is supposed to connote, but the IETF
responds to changes in the community by changing its engineering goals
and the problems it works on.
I would add that the IETF should change the way we solve those problems
as
You can always include add some text from this document in the TAO and
add a reference so anybody wanting to know more could follow.
Also, to me, this I+D also targets new and not so new WG chairs, not
just new comers.
.as
On 5/29/13 2:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On
Hi,
I have never been a wg chair but I think that this document may be very
useful and helpful (at least it clarifies many things to me).
I have some comments:
- To me Section 2.1 (Formal Steps) looks better after 2.2 (Criteria of
Adoption).
- Section 2.2 does not set up a
Juliao,
I went to all this sites (besides BBC Brazil) and searched for
Argentina. There were some news about economy, the lady President, some
about the senate, commercial balance but none saying huu, scary
Argentina, do not go there.
Regards,
as
On 5/28/13 7:13 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
should tell us about the true cenary would be our
Argentine friends.
Juliao
On 5/28/13 8:30 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
Arturo,
Who said ...huu, scary Argentina, do not go there? Where? In this list?
Em 28/05/2013 20:09, Arturo Servin escreveu:
Juliao,
I went to all this sites
, Arturo Servin escreveu:
not be recommended sounds to me it sounded like huu, scary, do not
go there.
/as
Perhaps not. Buenos Aires is also a big hub of technology in Latin
America. In addition as it was mentioned it relatively close from Sao
Paulo, Montevideo and Santiago. Also there are direct flights from other
major cities in Peru and Colombia.
Going to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo,
On 5/28/13 11:47 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/28/13 6:27 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Going to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City or Santiago will always
split audiences as these are the major tech hubs in the region (also add
Bogota, Lima, San Jose and other cities). So, I think
John,
Good summary.
I would add a steep learning-curve to start participating. It takes
time to get conformable in participating in mailing list and reviewing drafts
for I think two reasons. One is to get know how the IETF works, and another to
catch-up in knowing the topic in
, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/27/2013 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea. It could be interesting to try to
formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to qualify
But also remember, writing I+D is just part of the equation. We also
need reviewers and comments.
Regards,
as
On 5/27/13 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Each IETF document mentions the authors place address
On 5/27/13 11:15 AM, SM wrote:
Joel Jaeggli mentioned that a regional NOG is not fertile ground for new
IETF participants. Is LACNOG fertile ground for new IETF participants?
I guess so.
We have doing some efforts in the past and we are planning to do more.
You will see
On 5/27/13 12:41 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that have
interest to participate in this type of international forums and processes
SHOULD learn English.
-Jorge
Another barrier.
Anyway we are talking about
The idea that I had for this remote participation hub was to break the
ice. I saw no problem to provide some facilities to newcomers are more
comfortable. Perhaps, later that would encourage them to improve their
English and participate.
But these are just ideas.
.as
On
On 5/24/13 3:05 AM, SM wrote:
Just meeting in some place does not bring too many new participants,
at least not in a lasting manner. But combined with some other actions,
this may be possible. Are there specific companies or research teams
that
we could reach out to, and who
Where are you flying from?
There are direct flights from Miami, Dallas, Toronto, Washington and
other hubs to Buenos Aires.
Regards,
as
On 5/24/13 11:12 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
The == The IAOC bob.hin...@gmail.com writes:
The The venues are in Buenos Aires.
I have been lurking IETF for many years, but it was only after I went
to my first meeting that I really understood how the IETF worked and how
to really participate.
After that meeting I started to send comments, read drafts, writing
some initial stuff and arguing. Before that
Depending on how the IETF in BA is scheduled, it may be possible or not
to make it before or after of a regional meeting such as LACNIC, LACTLD
or LACNOG.
I guess the best bet is for the third meeting of the year (IETF is
around the beginning of November, LACNOG/LACNIC are around
This is very good news. If done, it would show how the IETF is evolving
and adapting to this new world that it is own creation the Internet
has make us live in.
Regards,
as
On 5/23/13 3:30 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
Never been to Buenos Aires - but it sounds like a great idea. I know
that
,
as
On 5/23/13 6:47 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is very good news. If done, it would show how the IETF is
evolving
and adapting to this new world that it is own creation the Internet
has make us live
On 4/12/13 8:55 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
SM wrote:
Ted Lemon wrote:
So in fact you don't need to put some percentage of white males on
the IESG, the IAB or the IAOC to make me happy. I want people on
these bodies who feel strongly about open standards, rough consensus
and running code.
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was followed
and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this
particular process
On 4/12/13 4:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
in our process because that means that the document had
On 4/12/13 4:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with
review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG
document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or
comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC is
On 4/12/13 5:52 PM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
followed
On 4/10/13 7:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once
blacklisted them and caused them some inconvenience, therefore all
DNSBLs suck forever. I could say similar things about buggy PC
implementations of TCP/IP, but I think a few things
Somebody point me to see that the date of the post in circleid is April
1st ...
:)
-as
On 4/11/13 11:17 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
On 4/10/13 7:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once
blacklisted them and caused them some
I see no harm in including these type of question as optional.
Personally I do not care if it were mandatory but I think that the most
sensible thing to do is to add it as optional.
It would be also good to see the complete set of questions.
So, I support.
Regards,
as
On 4/11/13 1:00 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
if you do add questions about diversity, please also add
the following questions.
Please no.
This is about the registration form, not a survey.
.as
other stats like the ones i asked for, then the effort will just
reinforce bogus statistical claims.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:33:21PM -0300, Arturo Servin wrote:
On 4/11/13 1:00 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
if you do add questions about diversity, please also add
the following questions
I have gave some feedback to some I+D authors, I have commented I+Ds
on emailing lists, etc. but never with any expectation of being thanked
by and ack in the I+D or even to include my comments if those are not
supported by the authors or the WG. My only expectation to participate
in the
I interpret it as anybody.
ISPs, cctlds, governments, gtlds, IETF, RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, you, me.
/as
On 3/20/13 4:43 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed
On 3/20/13 12:17 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/20/13 15:16, Jorge Contreras allegedly wrote:
I would strongly recommend that legal counsel be consulted before any
such list is produced or used by IETF/IESG/Nomcom.
Or don't generate it at all. Trying to have a complete list of human
As I mentioned in the mic during the IAB-sponsored Discussion of WCIT,
during the week I had the opportunity to talk and interact to some of
the policy fellows invited by ISOC (in general were people from the
national regulator or from the ministry of telecommunications -AFAIK-).
I also
I looked at the WG's agendas of some meetings that I missed and none
have a link to the meetecho's recording (they have the audio and
jabber), which was odd to me (or I had very bad luck to miss the only
non-meetcho meetings.)
Then I found the recordings at:
Policy Manual / v1.10 - 13/08/2012
1. Definitions
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-1
2. IPv4 Addresses
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-2
etc ...
And it is not administration/control, it is also about service
(language, timezones, etc.)
/as
Yes and no.
I would get rid of all the dots, possible yes.
The new attendee tag, not sure. May change it for a dot.
The tags is useful to identify new people and help. A mentor tag or dot
would be useful to people for not thinking that you are a weirdo trying
to
On 3/16/13 4:54 PM, James Galvin wrote:
snip
It seems to me that the real question here is what is the role of the
confirming body? Should its role be biased towards a review (however
deep) of the work of the NOMCOM or should its role be biased towards
ensuring the NOMCOM has followed
Along the thread there have been great ideas on how to do mentoring to
newcomers; I just want to point out something.
Mentoring is not only about WG chairs, IAB and IESG, it seems to me
that we want to pass the problem to them. My opinion is that anyone that
has come to the IETF
to be
considered the next time we're looking for an editor.
On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
Along the thread there have been great ideas on how to do mentoring to
newcomers; I just want to point out something.
Mentoring is not only about WG
Hi,
I have been reading the comments in the list and although I am not
making a specific reply to any message I would like to make some comments.
So far I have read I agree we need some diversity or I agree that
more diversity is better. Also I have read Please no quotas, do not
,
as
On 11/03/2013 14:25, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
On 3/11/2013 1:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 03/11/2013 01:43 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
My opinion is that we agree we have a situation that we should
improve,
but also we shouldn't focus on the nomcom process, the problem is not
about how we
OK, I'll bite.
I would by no means use the word stupider, but I do think that a
group of females and males would take better decisions that a group of
only-males or only-females.
/as
On 11/03/2013 18:54, Dan Harkins wrote:
In other words, the statement that gender and racial
Fred,
I am not convinced that social nets (proprietary or not) are yet a good
tool to do IETF work. They are good to communicate one-way and some
informal two-ways, but that's all (at least for now)
What I had in mind was something very simple such that the IETF chair
could do is
It appears that the path that this discussion has followed has proven
your point.
/as
On 25/02/2013 23:31, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
On 2/25/13, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Fred,
I am not convinced that social nets (proprietary or not) are yet a good
tool to do IETF
-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/23/2013 07:38 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Very good initiative.
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
tools to collaborate.
Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF
or a contractor payed
/2013 14:52, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 02/24/2013 05:21 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Why not?
I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them
very useful for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF
shouldn't. Please, tell me.
You said collaborate below, now you
was advertising a talk wherein I
discussed why it's a bad idea to rely on such closed platforms. :)
)
Cheers,
Brian
On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net
wrote:
Why not?
I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them
very useful for outreach
Very good initiative.
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace
new tools to collaborate.
Regards,
as
On 22/02/2013 20:35, IETF Chair wrote:
Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would be possible to
provide periodic status reports
I agree that RFC2050 is not completely valid with the current state of
the Internet, but making it historic will not solve any problem IMHO.
Before making 2050 historic, we should think what is and what is not
valid according with today's internet, what the technical community
What are those?
Without the context it is impossible to guess, at least for me.
.as
On 04/12/2012 23:34, Scott Brim wrote:
Those are all endpoint implementation problems and thus not subject to
IETF standardization :-)
In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate criteria:
- Accept an I+D for the merely fact to have a more structured
discussion in the WG.
Regards
::as
On 02/12/2012 16:47, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/28/2012 8:00 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I led the discussion
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
Regards,
as
On 02/12/2012 18:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/2/12 11:18 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate
Well, I think we shouldn't.
I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
are willing to support it as RFC.
/as
On 02/12/2012 20:36, SM wrote:
At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful
On 02/12/2012 21:50, Randy Bush wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
and so that the chairs have the option of changing editorship to turn
them into good ideas.
randy
That's is true. But I would prefer to
On 02/12/2012 21:52, Randy Bush wrote:
I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
are willing to support it as RFC.
i thought that was wglc. but i am a dinosaur.
randy
What I meant is that accepting the I+D as WG document clears the
path of the bad idea to
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
1.1. What is a Working Group Draft?
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet Drafts (I-D). Working groups use this mechanism for
producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
