So my brain then went to:
The ex officio positions are non-voting liaisons, delegated or not,
but they also should appoint a person who is /not/ from their body as a
voting person.
IMHO your brain went to the wrong place ;-)
The IETF Chair is not a liaison for goodness sake - s/he is
Sad news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12879908
--
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Site Renumbering (RENUM) BOF at IETF 80
THURSDAY, March 31, 2011, 1520-1720, Congress Hall II
Chairs: Brian Carpenter + TBD
Sponsoring AD: Ron Bonica
Mailing list: re...@ietf.org
Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum
Description
---
As outlined in RFC 5887,
On 2011-03-16 11:22, Martin Rex wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
to Proposed Standard.
1. While the accounting ugliness
There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we
can get consensus soon.
Just a couple of remarks on
5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels
1) Probably there should be a statement that all existing
Internet Standard documents are still classified as Internet
On 2011-03-07 00:15, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg04792.html
Adrian
One could argue that
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/process-experiment.html
should also contain pointers, or at least a status line, for concluded
On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote:
Nurit:
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally disbanded
its group assigned to work with ITU in 2009. Others with more detailed
knowledge can explain exactly why this is, er, a lie.
Here are some facts:
===
I
On 2011-03-03 05:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to the
press over the past few days. Last Friday, the ITU-T Study Group 15 decided
to move forward with an OAM solution that is
On 2011-03-02 01:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
FWIW, this came up in the dnsext working group a few years ago. In the
end, I don't think anything was done, which is kind of a shame.
Nothing was done for want of workers ;-) We
On 2011-02-26 10:34, bill manning wrote:
The IANA function was split?
RFC 2860 already did that. It seems to work well.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should
include a three and one-half inch
On 2011-02-25 05:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
The ratio of gripes against idnits to actual bug reports is getting to
be a bit annoying; and I'd like to suggest that people either submit
bug reports, or direct the complaints
Bob,
On 2011-02-22 08:23, Bob Hinden wrote:
John,
Support for the xml2rfc tool was discussed on the IETF mail
list when Marshall Rose indicated he could no longer support
the tool. Several people volunteered to maintain the tool,
and they recommended the it be rewritten. That
On 2011-02-17 03:47, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Parts of the challenge here is that turning on IPv6 (publishing a )
can also cause brokenness for users that have no IPv6 connectivity, e.g.,
those relying on broken 6to4 relays. This has been documented all over
the place, for example here:
On 2011-01-27 16:29, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
1/ I still do not think this (modified) proposal will have any real
impact on the number of Proposed Standard documents that move
to a (in this proposal, the) higher level since I do not see
how this makes any significant changes to the
On 2011-01-30 09:52, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 1/29/2011 12:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-01-27 16:29, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
4/ as part of #3 - the rules should also specifically deal with
the following pp from 2026
The requirement for at least two independent
Hi Scott and John,
I don't see this as inconsistent with the current 2-stage proposal,
if the latter's omission of a requirement for independent interoperable
implementations for stage 2 is corrected.
I don't, however, believe that the problems are separable.
The bar for PS has crept up, IMHO,
What nightmare? I find IPv6 dual stack works just fine.
However, see draft-wing-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-ipv6
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-01-23 04:34, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
My thought right now is perhaps of an OS update that includes a background
client which tries very hard to
Firstly, I agree: as a general rule, to get official floor space of
any kind at the IETF venue, you SHOULD have posted a draft. If there
is no draft, that is exactly when you need a bar BOF. (Complicated joke
about the height of the bar for a bar BOF, and the drafts to be drunk,
goes here.)
In any case, there are four facts of life that can't be ignored:
1. We have a BEHAVE WG and it has a charter.
2. We'd better hope that as many protocols as possible can traverse NAT64, which
will be with us for many years.
3. An important protocol that needs to traverse NAT44 is called IPv6 (in
On 2010-11-13 02:02, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The general tenor of this conversation seems to be:
* Paper badges that reveal our names: BAD - Privacy risk!
* RFID badges that allow our movements to be recorded: Cool - Technology!
How about paper badges with 2D barcodes?
That's
On 2010-11-12 12:32, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF
WG meetings is a big deal?
I think that freeriders attending our meetings without paying their
share of costs would be a big deal.
I think that patent trolls attending our
Hi,
I could live with this. I could live with draft-housley-two-maturity-levels.
I could also live with draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage (2003), or
draft-atkinson-newtrk-twostep (2006), or even draft-carpenter-newtrk-twostep
(2005).
For that matter I could live with
On 2010-11-09 13:54, Templin, Fred L wrote:
During the IPv6 panel at the plenary last night, representatives
of several major service providers discussed their experiences
with IPv6. It became clear that many of their experiments involve
technologies that delegate Provider-Aggregated (PA)
On 2010-11-08 15:26, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment. The
goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
more time to craft BOF proposals.
The proposed experiment includes three parts. First, schedule all BOFs
On 2010-10-26 13:22, Barry Leiba wrote:
I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this
proposal or dropping it.
I see disagreement with the proposal, but we'll see disagreement with
any proposal. I see enough support to continue pursuing it, in my
opinion, and trying
On 2010-10-13 12:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The original idea seems to have been that IPSEC would be a big enough
incentive to upgrade.
I've been keeping out of this conversation because I have other things to do,
like working on effective technologies for v4/v6 coexistence, but I have
to
Another +1 from me.
And with respect to the alleged mistake made 15 years ago, two facts
may help:
1. The transition model was complete - because it was based on vendors
and ISPs supporting dual stack globally well *before* IPv4 exhaustion.
It's because that didn't happen that we have a bit of a
On 2010-10-09 11:42, Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
1. The transition model was complete - because it was based on vendors
and ISPs supporting dual stack globally well *before* IPv4 exhaustion.
Huh? Hardly anyone support IPv6 these days.
Sorry Martin, to write it more clearly
On 2010-10-07 13:57, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 06/10/2010 05:40 p.m., Keith Moore wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP
addresses and port numbers in their payloads, as this is the only
way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow applications
to make contact
On 2010-10-01 16:14, James M. Polk wrote:
At 09:59 PM 9/30/2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since you asked, I'd like to see this move forward as quickly
as possible.
Just one practical issue seems to be hanging. The draft says:
This document makes no change to the current STD practice
On 2010-09-28 13:59, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
So, I came across a interesting recent (June 24, 2010) article on the US
DoD's news site (http://www.defense.gov/news/), which quote Kris Strance,
the chief of internet protocol for the [Dod], as
rewrite history,
and many operators are well beyond project and well into plan.
Content providers who aren't into plan have a problem coming up if they
still want to grow their audience a few years from now.
Brian
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen
Tom,
On 2010-09-22 04:29, NomCom Chair wrote:
Hi Folks,
A few folks have submitted some very helpful comments and I'd like to
share the answers publicly.
Q: If the List is Open why does it require a Login?
A: As interpreted by this NomCom, the list is disclosed to the IETF
community
On 2010-09-21 14:07, NomCom Chair wrote:
Hi Folks,
The first open disclosure of willing nominees for the IETF open positions
is now available at
https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/input/
Now I am a little more confused. When I follow this link and use
my tools login, I find the
On 2010-09-14 13:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I am not finding the net neutrality debate according to K-Street to be very
useful or stimulating.
+1. No, +100.
At the end of the day we have a limited amount of bandwidth available and we
can help matters if people co-operate where it is
On 2010-09-15 04:36, Bob Braden wrote:
On 9/14/2010 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Noel Chiappa:
I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including
how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very
much of the content of the discussions. If anyone
On 2010-09-13 02:21, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Adrian,
I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but
this
rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word
appropriate in a protocol spec!
Yes, true, but this is really a rare
On 2010-09-09 09:08, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
s/Informational RFCs/independent stream/
If what you're after is RFC == IETF, shouldn't we be eliminating the
independent submission process instead of informational RFCs in
general. Things like RFC 3693 or draft-ietf-geopriv-arch, which don't
On 2010-09-09 11:25, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
Finally, we are an open community encouraging a diversity of views, and
it's sometimes necessary (and often desirable) to publish material from
the community that meets none of the above criteria. Hence the
Independent stream of RFCs. As everyone
Sigh. It's hard to resist tendentious messages. I have two
questions for Mr Bennett.
Q1.
message from our public relations agency
To whom or what does our refer in this phrase?
Q2. Does your signature block:
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation
On 2010-09-08 11:26, Richard Bennett wrote:
I think you should have shared the message from our public relations agency
that started this incident, Russ. Here's what it said:
As Marshall indicated, this seems to have no public existence
outside of the present thread. However, let's assume it
priority-based, such as 802.11e traffic classes.
What on earth could the value of DSCPs be if they didn't map to traffic
classes in the data link?
RB
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Russ,
It has been consistently hard to explain that diffserv is not a
prioritisation
of the standards, which don't require any
particular payment model in order to perform their job.
Brian
RB
On 9/3/2010 1:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Richard,
Diffserv deals with multiple different queuing disiplines, which may
or may not be priority based. Please read RFC 2475 and if
you
eight
IP Precedence values.* (p. 1487)
This is very straightforward.
RB
On 9/3/2010 1:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Richard,
Diffserv deals with multiple different queuing disiplines, which may or may
not be priority based. Please read RFC 2475 and if
you like, B.E. Carpenter
in the dialog?
RB
On 9/3/2010 3:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, exactly what in your quotation is incompatible with what
I wrote:
Diffserv deals with multiple different queuing disiplines, which
may or may not be priority based.
?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-09-04 09:34
Russ,
It has been consistently hard to explain that diffserv is not a
prioritisation scheme, even within the technical community, let
alone to the regulators and the media. I think your comments as
quoted are as good as we can expect from journalists.
It should be a matter of concern to all of
It's certainly true that you need to use security products that
support IPv6 as well as they support IPv4. If they don't, change
vendors. Apart from that, it's scare-mongering. Consider that
the basic model for IPv6 is not fundamentally different than IPv4;
why would the underlying security
On 2010-08-27 11:10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/26/2010 2:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Apart from that, it's scare-mongering. Consider that
the basic model for IPv6 is not fundamentally different than IPv4;
why would the underlying security vulnerabilities be fundamentally
different
On 2010-08-27 11:36, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/26/2010 4:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 8/26/2010 2:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
why would the underlying security vulnerabilities be fundamentally
different?
...
True, but the same property means that scanning attacks
On 2010-08-08 03:11, Doug Ewell wrote:
Marshall Eubanks tme at americafree dot tv wrote:
We do have some data on this point - the day pass experiment (DPE) has
shown pretty conclusively IMO that the IETF does not get a lot of
truly local ad-hoc participants. Most day pass attendees appear to
On 2010-07-30 08:47, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/29/2010 10:00 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
If we're going to continue this avalanche of ad hoc meetings that we call
Bar BOFs, I would recommend that the Secretariat provide a web page for
requesting them. The title of the web page should be Poorly
Hi,
I'm only going to comment on the suggested changes to the BCP.
The other recommendations all seem to be reasonable additions to the
general guidance for future Nomcoms.
RECOMMENDATION -- Selective Exclusion
* The Nomcom Chair may selectively exclude any participant from a single
John Levine asked:
Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate in some or
all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely anonymous. Is this a
reasonable expectation?
No. Anonymous or pseudonymous contributions would allow a scumbag
patent troll to inject
On 2010-07-18 03:48, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
At:
http://www.bbiw.net/recent.html#nomcom2010
there is a copy of the Full Proposal, and a Summary which primarily
contains just the recommendations.
Um, we have this new system called Internet-Drafts, whereby proposals
are issued by a
On 2010-07-06 08:49, SM wrote:
...
The author of the draft is the current IETF Chair. I have some
reservations about the IETF Chair driving such a proposal through the
process. Although the IETF Chair is also an IETF participant, it can be
perceived as problematic when the person writes a
On 2010-06-26 02:49, Russ Housley wrote:
Phillip:
Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
included the whole IESG.
I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that
there is
On 2010-06-25 20:08, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Jun 25, 2010, at 09:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
trying v6 for a couple of seconds before trying v4 in parallel
I don't think this is realistic for applications like the Web, where people
are now creating Youtube-Spots with high-speed cameras
It's been amusing to see the same old arguments going past for the
Nth time. Maybe we can have a side-thread about the value of N.
That said, my comment on this proposal is: ship it.
It's simple, simple to implement, and it aligns RFC 2026 with current practice.
So let's just do it.
Brian
On 2010-05-28 04:51, David Conrad wrote:
...
Well, no. While that is a problem, I suspect the real issue is:
'Within 18 months it is estimated that the number of new devices able to
connect to the world wide web will plummet as we run out of IP addresses'
I strongly suspect that Daniel
wouldn't want to be the poor soul
responsible for their ISP network who built a transition plan based on a
2015 depletion and then realized I was wrong by a few years.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian E
On 2010-05-29 03:01, David Conrad wrote:
On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global
address sharing.
An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the
other form of global
On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with Daniel, he does
at least have extensive experience in these
On 2010-05-07 11:20, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:58 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This seems completely reasonable.
And to me too.
+1
+1
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Bob,
I hope we all agree with that. There can be a difficulty, however,
if the apparently obvious and correct technical fix actually has
implications beyond the obvious that might be picked up by renewed
WG discussion or even a repeat Last Call.
But I think we would be foolish to legislate on
I see that this (still the same version) is On agenda of 2010-05-06
IESG telechat, and I must say I'm a little surprised, since I counted
seven clear objections to the document and no strong supporting
comments. Also, IANA said IANA does not understand the implications
of the IANA Actions
On 2010-04-19 08:29, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've recently tried to subscribe to the SECDIR list. Apparently, this
list is public (it's archived on the web), but one cannot subscribe to
it.
The question is: Why would anyone configure things this way? It's
really, really odd.
(It was
On 2010-04-09 07:08, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com wrote:
If this is true it make me wonder why does the IETF care about the
affiliation of WG chairs and ADs
Roni Even
The reason traditionally given that IETF participants in
On 2010-04-07 05:57, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as participants for exactly that reason.
Right.
Or contributors when they contribute and therefore subject
Olafur,
In my mind there are basically three kinds of IETF working groups:
1) New protocols/protocol extensions frequently with limited
attention to operations.
2) Protocol maintainance groups
3) Operational groups
RFC2119 words are aimed at the first type, and can to
Cullen,
I believe that the RFC 3261 ABNF *is* plain incorrect. It allows the
generation of text representations including ::: and that is
clearly not intended to be allowed by the description in RFC 4291.
(Being precise, it says The :: can only appear once in an address.
whereas I can find it
Christian,
On 2010-03-19 05:31, Christian Huitema wrote:
If the real reason for this draft is to set conformance levels for
DNSSEC (something that I strongly support), then it should be a one-page
RFC that says This document defines DNSSEC as these RFCs, and
implementations
MUST support
In my opinion this is not ready for prime time.
Basically: it's inconsistent with the requirements part of RFC 2026
and inconsistent with RFC 2119. I don't think we should create
confusion by such inconsistency.
There are three main aspects of this inconsistency:
1. 3.1. MANDATORY
This is
an IETF
standards action can do that.
Regards
Brian
On 2010-03-18 12:10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:43 AM +1300 3/18/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In my opinion this is not ready for prime time.
I agree with all of Brian's issues, and add another one that is equally, if
not more
On 2010-03-16 05:42, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF standard.
I just want to keep this part of the discussion real. There is no
requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain only ASCII
characters.
That requirement is explicit for
On 2010-03-14 10:58, Scott Brim wrote:
These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols
[3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to
read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You
could justify what's there now and ignore
Andrew,
Thankyou for spending time on this.
On 2010-03-12 06:16, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
It is instead an appeal that the documents were not published with
disclaimers attached.
Interesting. Since we're being legalistic, all IETF documents carry
the standard disclaimer (by reference in
a...@shinkuro.com writes:
Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That seems to cover most angles. I can't see why the IESG could
be expected to add technical disclaimers to a consensus
document. In fact, doing so would probably be a process violation
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully support such an approach (and did propose the
I'd like to note that the authors are aware that
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07 is now
proposed for the standards track, and this may mean
it becomes a normative reference for sip-ipv6-abnf-fix
(and applicable to SIP implementations).
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-03-06 12:30, The
On 2010-02-23 07:07, Michael Richardson wrote:
Dan == Dan Romascanu Romascanu writes:
A new alias has been created for discussion on this topic:
Dan clo...@ietf.org mailto:clo...@ietf.org .
Dan Do you mean a mail list? Can you provide subscribe information?
The participants
Well yes, everybody's right in this area, since the terminology
is so fuzzy and so infected by marketing noise. In any case, I am
not for a moment saying: don't hold a Bar BOF. It seems like an
excellent idea to talk about it. What I am saying is: our sister
standards body the OGF seems like the
Chuckle? Not really. This is depressing. So maybe the IETF should smile
and stand back politely.
Brian
On 2010-02-23 14:05, Jeff Wheeler (jewheele) wrote:
actually in the DMTF Telco WG we're completing a 3-month study of the
metrics and data artifacts used by the various SDOs, consortia
On 2010-01-12 07:11, Dean Willis wrote:
On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:32 PM -0600 1/10/10, Dean Willis wrote:
Very interesting, from an IETF-hosting perspective.
snarkI cannot imagine going to an IETF meeting and not being able to
read Wired magazine while I am
On 2009-12-29 16:02, Sam Hartman wrote:
Julian == Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de writes:
Julian Marshall Eubanks wrote:
... This message is to announce that the IETF Trustees have
adopted on a new version of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP), to
be effective 28
FWIW, the document allows the RFC editor some headway in maintaining the
language in the style guide.
Maybe we^H^Hthe IAB should have aimed at full delegation of the boilerplate,
exactly as for the Trust-maintained boilerplate.
For now, there are indeed weasel words such as:
However, this
On 2009-12-19 06:26, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, December 18, 2009 12:10 -0500 Marshall Eubanks
t...@americafree.tv wrote:
What's so bogus about wanting to charge for traffic?
Where I would raise a flag is, charge whom ?
This sounds very much like the way that international long
Hi,
I'm in favour of publishing this document.
I'm wondering which of the two relevant guidelines for Experimental
status in http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
applies in this case.
Looking at the writeup in the tracker:
This document presents a working example of the
On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people
On 2009-12-01 06:03, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote
I'm quite happy for the subject matter experts to decide between
these two approaches.
Thanks
Brian
On 2009-11-27 01:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
These are the sort of changes that would, I believe, give
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most
, at 11:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
These are the sort of changes that would, I believe, give
sufficient indication to a would-be user of PATCH of how
to make it somewhat safe. Personally I'd prefer to see it
made more prominent by starting with something like:
Clients requiring to verify
How about the IESG simply rescinds its decision in this week's
meeting? I don't see any need for an appeal; if there's a
prima facie violation of the disclosure rules, it's just a
management item. Much less bother than an appeal.
Of course, the rescission would be subject to appeal, but
that's
These are the sort of changes that would, I believe, give
sufficient indication to a would-be user of PATCH of how
to make it somewhat safe. Personally I'd prefer to see it
made more prominent by starting with something like:
Clients requiring to verify the consistent application of a
patch
In fact, lightning talks are SOP at most operator group meetings.
I think that would be an excellent experiment.
Brian
On 2009-11-17 22:39, Eliot Lear wrote:
As a life-long fan of the Gong Show, I think it'd be cool to have a big
Gong on the dias, where perhaps after a bunch of loud hums,
On 2009-11-18 11:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So I'd find it really useful to know what problem this dispute
resolution mechanism is actually supposed to solve.
Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will
work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have
a clear path for
This version satisfies all my concerns with previous versions. Thanks!
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 2009-11-17 09:12, Bob Hinden wrote:
Reaction to the timers was quite mixed, going all the way from love to
hate; we never did a survey of the participants afterwards, I think.
We probably should have.
I was one of the folks who hated it. I view the open mikes as the
time for the
On 2009-11-13 20:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As far as I can tell, the proposal places the burden for ensuring
atomicity entirely on the server. However, PATCH is explicitly not
idempotent. If a client issues a PATCH, and the server executes the
PATCH,
but the client
Julian,
On 2009-11-13 23:35, Julian Reschke wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-11-13 20:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As far as I can tell, the proposal places the burden for ensuring
atomicity entirely on the server. However, PATCH is explicitly not
idempotent
401 - 500 of 1719 matches
Mail list logo
