On 2008-12-12 12:40, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> So, given that, the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
> to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
> days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
> to modify and update tools to incorporate the new boil
I hereby extend the rights in my contributions that I have personally
granted in the past to the IETF and to the IETF Trust to include
the additional rights required by RFC5378. Obviously by doing so,
I cannot extend the rights granted by my various employers.
I'm going to print the updated licens
Keith,
With some reluctance, I have't changed your cc list. But
my conclusion is that this particular discussion belongs
on the RRG list as much as anywhere.
On 2008-12-02 09:52, Keith Moore wrote:
...
> (Because at present the "we need NATs for routing" argument looks, to my
> intuition, a bit l
Steve,
Can you clarify whether this work applies to one particular sign
language or to many? I am completely "illiterate" in these languages,
but I understand that there are many of them.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2008-11-29 08:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi -
>
> There are several issue
Sam,
I agree with Russ. I think the clearest possible result is the one
we achieved in the case appended below, but that required quite
some work in the absence of a well-defined procedure, even without
there being an independent submission to synchronize. I think the
draft makes such cases easier
> Guess i will use the jabber / streaming stuff anyway to get informed
As long as people upload their slides to the meeting materials page,
I find this works very well. But I think the idea of experimenting
with a variety of more recent tools is a good one.
Brian
__
On 2008-10-21 23:00, IAB Chair wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The IAB intends to publish the following document and invites any
> comments you might have:
>
> "On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates"
>draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-03 [1]
>
I think this is ready to publish, exce
I'm happy with this version. I think it updates the procedures in
accordance with what we've learned since RFC3932.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 2008-10-10 18:39, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote, to multiple mailing lists of which
> ietf@ietf.org is the only relevant as far as I am individually concerned:
>
>> On 2008-10-10 03:50, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>
>>>> There are lin
On 2008-10-10 03:50, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>
>> There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may interest
>> you.
>
> For easy accessibility of those links see:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html
I don't think we should endorse in any way the implication that
the NTIA or any ot
On 2008-08-21 12:45, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>> Oh gosh, I hope we're not archiving all those WG millstones...
>
> in the fiction department :-)
In the non-fiction department, there's also
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/index.html
(which is the "Concluded" link at the top of the
basic "IET
On 2008-08-20 12:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> the result will (appropriately) be to have more
>>> finely tuned IPR declarations, which make it clear that the declaration
>>> is targeted at the specific stan
On 2008-08-16 05:44, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
> I agree with John, and expect that if the IETF Trust will now be allowed
> to take an expired ID, and do with it want it wants outside of the
> standards process,
I read the text of RFC 2026 as Simon does, but RFC 3667 and 3978 added
the phrase "
On 2008-08-16 10:48, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
> Reading through this, I see that the recommendation that
> an IPR discloser "withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised
> Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure" made it into
> the BCP. Someone else will have to decide if this is already
> co
On 2008-08-16 02:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
>
> I'd like to suggest that the IETF patent disclosure mechanism be changed
> to postings to a mailing list. All patent disclosures can be sent to
> it, archived as any other IETF work. The postings would then also be
> subject to the dispute hand
On 2008-08-16 06:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:37 PM -0400 8/15/08, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
>> In general, not a bad approach. However, does a valid amendment include
>> the statement "this IPR declaration is now null and void, since the
>> technology did not make it into the targeted standard"
On 2008-08-15 01:48, SM wrote:
> At 03:59 14-08-2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
>> existence of posters (do they
>> exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
>> _before_ the posting is accepted.
>
> The sub
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a removal
> request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons
> that are valid:
>
> * Exact duplicates
> * Spam
>
> Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the lia
On 2008-08-14 05:10, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF
>> will find itself in the position of evaluating the
>> _correctness_ of patent related claims
How about adding some weasel words, or even simply making the
attribution requirement a "should"? I think it's perfectly reasonable
to ask for attribution when possible, so any form of words that
doesn't "break" the BSD license in a narrow legalistic sense
would do fine for me.
It's not like we're
On 2008-08-10 07:58, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, 09 August, 2008 20:52 +0200 "Bert Wijnen
> \\(IETF\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> John and Dave,
>>
>> I think that both of you (and some others) arwe looking at the
>> ID_Checklist
>> too much as if it is part of our (rigid) proc
On 2008-08-04 02:09, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>> these limitations don't inherently apply to NAT between v4 and v6,
>
> >> I thought the inherent problems ... would apply to an IPv4-IPv6 NAT,
> >> when such a device is used to allow a grou
Hi Marshall,
On 2008-08-04 04:26, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
> 1.) Is it really necessary to have a jabber scribe and a regular scribe
> as a separate
> position ? We had 117 sessions in Dublin, finding 234 scribes is clearly
> harder than finding 117.
According to BCP 25, the minutes of a meeti
<>___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The headline is pretty misleading. The content seems accurate.
Brian
On 2008-07-29 00:55, Marc Manthey wrote:
> morning all,
>
> i was a bit confused after i read this 2 articles
>
>> NAT gets added to IPv6 after all
>
> http://www.techworld.com/networking/features/index.cfm?featureid=416
I hope this is a small point, but is it clear that what
you want is legal counsel to the IAOC rather than to IASA?
Brian
On 2008-07-26 19:52, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> All;
>
> The IAOC is considering adopting Administrative Procedures. The Draft
> policy can be found at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/
> AFAIK , VRVS / EVO is not available for PC
Not so, EVO works very well on Windows and is trivial
to install. The problem with EVO, Access Grid or the
commercial alternatives is not there - it's the extreme
difficulty of running an effective remote meeting with
more than a very small number (4
On 2008-07-19 04:21, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Marshall,
>> > It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
>> > here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
>
>> Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact mistaken,
>> but I never said that we have rules that *preve
On 2008-07-20 13:01, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Ned,
>
>> ...
>>> Frankly, I think it is more about trusting groups to be able to manage
>>> themselves than anything else.
>
>> I don't think that's quite fair. If you think about a participant
>> who is tracking several WGs and/or topics that cut across
Ned,
...
> Frankly, I think it is more about trusting groups to be able to manage
> themselves than anything else.
I don't think that's quite fair. If you think about a participant
who is tracking several WGs and/or topics that cut across many WGs,
that person needs to be able to read everything
Olafur,
If you recall the Paris meeting, we did try a different mixture
of session lengths, and it caused quite some scheduling problems.
I'd have to dig out some old email for the details, but it
was definitely a problem. So after Paris, we stuck to the late
dinner schedule, but went back to a mo
On 2008-07-18 09:33, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
> we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
> meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
> competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are not
On 2008-07-09 07:08, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
>Small point of confusion: I thought the RFC document series was
> managed with some independence of the IETF. As such, I'm not clear how
> the IETF (nevermind the IESG) can set the rules for RFC format and style.
I view the id-checklist as a gatin
Joe,
On 2008-07-08 14:55, Joe Abley wrote:
...
> I'm not suggesting that growth should be allowed to happen without
> considering the technical consequences. However, I believe in practice
> with the headroom in systems and network that root server operators
> generally install anyway, there's con
On 2008-07-06 01:00, John Levine wrote:
...
>> How many label our hosts with two letter domain names?
>
> Beats me, but since there are several hundred TLDs, it seems to me that
> the chances are pretty low that everyone in the world has managed to
> avoid using them as host names.
Back in t
On 2008-07-02 09:07, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue
> without providing text. So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD
> is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged
> if he does not provide text (you didn
On 2008-06-29 16:35, SM wrote:
> At 16:18 27-06-2008, David Conrad wrote:
>> A TLD of all numbers would be a real pain to deal with. That is, from
>> a software parsing perspective, what's the difference between the
>> domain name "127.0.0.1" and the IP address "127.0.0.1"?
>
> The domain name ma
een signed. It could take some time...)
>
> all the best,
> Lawrence
> (speaking personally)
>
> On 27 Jun 2008, at 22:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I think all the external evidence is that ICANN is deeply reluctant to
>> set up mechanisms that require the applica
Lakshminath,
On 2008-06-28 02:09, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> My point was this: if a WG actually missed anything substantial and that
> comes out during an IETF last call, and the shepherding AD agrees, the
> document gets sent back to the WG. If the shepherding AD also misses or
> misjudge
Joe,
On 2008-06-28 08:31, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 27 Jun 2008, at 15:57, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, SM wrote:
I believe an RFC that provides an IETF-defined list of names (beyond
the 4 in 2606) and/or rules defining names the "Internet technical
communi
Lakshminath,
On 2008-06-26 23:43, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> On 6/25/2008 2:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
>> Our fundamental collective job is defined in RFC 3935:
>>
>>The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
>>technical and
On 2008-06-26 06:30, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Lakshminath,
>
> Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would
> certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment
> of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that appears in
> practice. In particular, the
Pete (and Dave Crocker),
On 2008-06-17 03:20, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of non-RFC2606
>> names as examples is a purely stylistic matter, and that in others, it
&g
Dave,
On 2008-06-16 11:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of non-RFC2606
>> names as examples is a purely stylistic matter, and that in others,
>> it would potentially cause technical c
Regardless of John's P.S., I'd like to make some comments
that the IESG may wish to consider:
On 2008-06-15 05:11, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, 14 June, 2008 10:44 -0400 Eastlake III
> Donald-LDE008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past f
Joe,
> It seems to me that direct assignment could quite possibly become the
> default for small IPv6 sites in the ARIN region. IPv6 uptake to date has
> been so tiny that I don't think anybody can predict what behaviours will
> become prevalent if/when IPv6 takes off.
We can't predict how econom
Leo,
On 2008-06-03 18:25, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 02/06/2008 11:24, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>>> For all other
>>> cases it introduces a bias that has no science about it.
>>> In otherwords it introduces bia
Mark,
Firstly let me say +1 to the view that this is absolutely not
suitable for handing as an erratum; I'm quite sure it was a
consensus decision of the WG.
Secondly, I am a bit surprised that it's written to apply to
IPv4 - that does seem inappropriate. My comments below are
applicable to IPv6.
Joel,
>
> Would it address your concern if the document said something like:
> "Reviewers should be sensitive to the difference between
> their personal opinions (and preferences) and issues
> which will affect the correct operation or interoperation
> of the documents under revi
Lisa,
Could you let us see your summary of the discussion about
(not) documenting the X-headers? I haven't seen any further
comments since Dave's message below, and it appears that the
IESG is ballotting on the document now.
Regards
Brian
On 2008-04-08 06:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Pete Res
>
> I agree with Melinda here. I can't remember ever seeing anything
> like an ISBN or an ISSN used as a citation in an academic paper.
Correct, but I have seen a wide variety of ways to cite RFCs
and tying them all back to an ISSN number would be a step forward
IMHO. In any case: at worst, harm
On 2008-05-22 07:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ray Pelletier wrote:
>> ...
>> The Trust believes there are advantages to indentifying the RFC Series
>> with an ISSN. Among them,
>> 1. Make reference to the series compact and globally unique;
>> ...
>
> More compact than ?
Possibly not, but there
On 2008-05-08 08:11, Russ Housley wrote:
> Stephane:
>
>>> We are inviting the first ten (10) interested members of the IETF
>>> community who respond to this email to become a part of the website
>>> redesign team. If you are interested in assisting with this effort,
>>> please respond to this em
Stephane,
On 2008-04-22 03:04, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:41:33PM +0300,
> Hannes Tschofenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 46 lines which said:
>
>> Rather than providing these types of summaries it would make more
>> sense to provide a conclusion of the
On 2008-04-18 07:22, Bill McQuillan wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-17, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
>> I think that only "Approved" and "Archived" are required.
>
>> Approved is correctly for implementors to correct problems in the
>> specification.
>
>> Everything else is for a working group to consider whe
Seems good to me. Will the "archived" and "rejected" errata
be visible to the public? I think that should be mentioned.
BTW, "errata" is a plural noun. The singular is "erratum."
Brian
On 2008-04-17 03:16, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG is considering the following statement to guide the handling
On 2008-04-15 09:11, Ned Freed wrote:
>> +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
>> that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
>
> These two MUSTs (the ability to whitelist specific posters without them having
> to receive list mail and spam rejection) are both completely trivi
+1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
Brian
On 2008-04-15 08:25, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2008-04-14 17:39 IESG Secretary said the following:
>> The following principles apply to spam control on IETF mailing lists:
Phill,
RFC 2026 requires that the Secretariat maintains records.
Whether they do so is of course an operational matter for
the IAOC, but from my personal knowledge they have always
been able to respond adequately to subpoenas. As you (and
RFC 2026) say, email archives are only a part of the necess
On 2008-04-11 23:40, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> I too like Ted's comments.
>
> If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title
> "convener" might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets
> followed up, call it an "executive director".
>
> But I can live with the cu
On 2008-04-10 07:04, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> John, you wrote:
>>
>>> Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be
>>> changed.
>> The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of t
John,
On 2008-04-09 12:55, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 16:30 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The above being said, it is quite clear from the excellent
>> comments posted by several people on this topic that the
>> Trustees have more work
Frank,
On 2008-04-06 03:29, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> My underlying concern is that 2822upd should not appear
>> ridiculous to anyone who looks at a typical mail header
>> and sees the X-headers.
>
> 2822upd specifies only about twenty
pam-Score,
X-Spam-Level, X-Spam-Status, X-Mailer, X-BeenThere, and
X-Mailman-Version. Leaving this completely undocumented
harms the relevance of the standard.
Brian
On 2008-04-05 10:47, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Friday, 04 April, 2008 14:43 +0200 Frank Ellermann
> <[
On 2008-04-04 21:13, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> As for the reported use of the lists for spam, they need not be included in
> the
> proceedings.
email addresses were dropped from the proceedings years ago for
that reason.
> Hadn't thought about it before, but I'm not seeing why attendee
> lists a
-1. I think that given the pressure of work on our
volunteer "officials", we should allow load sharing
wherever it's feasible. We have running code here -
despite having the IAD's support and a volunteer
Secretary for the Trust, two successive IAOC chairs
have been overburdened.
Brian
On 2008-
On 2008-04-04 22:57, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Ray Pelletier wrote:
>> 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member
>> leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee.
>> When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD -
>> upon th
I am disturbed that the messy situation of X- headers,
created by RFC 2822's silence on the subject, has
not been fixed.
See http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/klensin-response.txt
for an example of the issues that this silence can
create.
I believe it would be appropriate to document that although
John,
On 2008-04-04 09:54, John C Klensin wrote:
> Ray,
>
> Some observations...
>
> (1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is
> willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit
> provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or
> willingness to sign has t
On 2008-04-02 09:41, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
> Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 12 lines which said:
>
>> Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
>
> For instance, I claim that the person mention
Simon,
On 2008-03-29 22:10, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> this? However, if a license meet the requirements of OSD/FSD/DFSG,
I don't believe it is appropriate for an IETF BCP to contain
an open-ended dependency on whatever future requirements three
other organizations might publish. That's why i
On 2008-03-28 20:14, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
>> point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
>> IETF documents.
>
> Those being ietf-stream
+1. I couldn't express it better.
Brian
On 2008-03-29 04:54, Ted Hardie wrote:
> At 8:16 AM -0700 3/28/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
>>> worded, it doesn't matter what "ope
While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
IETF documents. We can have a meta-discussion about
where the clarifications belong, but it seems to me
that the WG consensus definitely assumed that scope
and no wider scope. I'd be happy
On 2008-03-27 09:14, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>> --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 21:30:54 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Finally, the outbound draft merely provides recommendations regarding
>>> license text and other materials, final d
On 2008-03-25 08:52, Russ Housley wrote:
> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
> Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
> call. The Last Call announcements are attached.
On 2008-03-26 08:43, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
>> concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
>> anonymous solutions to technical problems.
>>
>
> It is my understanding that IETF is alre
On 2008-03-26 04:44, John Levine (or somebody) wrote:
...
> So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined
> to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees
> mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else
> already subject to 3683, ju
Ted,
On 2008-03-21 10:32, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 09:45:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Well, try reading it before you rush to judgement. I've always
>> found Olivier's opinions well worth listening too.
>
> I tried reading it,
T
On 2008-03-21 08:12, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> With an opening sentence of:
>
>> While there appears to be a wide consensus about the fact that the Internet
>> has stalled or ossified, some would even say that it is in a rapid state of
>> degeneracy, there is no agreement on a plan of actio
Hi Charles,
On a procedural point:
On 2008-03-19 04:13, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> But RFC2045 is a Draft Standard, and
> it is entirely outside the remit of the EAI WG to attempt to change what is
> in a Draft Standard.
This draft does lack a couple of headers:
Updates: 2045 (if approved)
Inten
On 2008-03-19 16:40, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2008-03-19 15:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Michael StJohns wrote:
>>>> At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>>>> *The names of people nominated should
Glen,
On 2008-03-19 04:31, Glen Zorn wrote:
...
> Some of us don't subscribe to the IETF list (due to the extremely poor
> S/N ratio). Someone did forward me Bernard's original message & to me
> it appears to fall squarely into the N category (either that or it is an
> early April 1 RFC candidat
On 2008-03-19 15:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Michael StJohns wrote:
>> At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>> *The names of people nominated should be made public.
>>> *The names of the people who agreed to serve if selected should be kept
>>> secret.
>> +1
>>
>> Open enough to
On 2008-03-17 14:16, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> [...]
>> Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring
>> authority resides in the confirming bodies.
>
> Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my opinoin, the Nomcom
>
On 2008-03-15 04:11, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> On 3/14/2008 5:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
>> Here I agree with you fully: this is an extremely bad idea.
>> Architecturally linking application security to the link layer is
>> just bad engineering, and hinders the ability of link layers
Hi Lakshimnath, just a few notes and queries...
On 2008-03-16 16:10, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
> * Nominee lists should be made public. In fact, other selection
> processes within the IETF make the candidate lists public and so it is
> time we let go of this in the nomcom context. The cas
On 2008-03-16 02:09, Russ Housley wrote:
> Jari:
>
> > Challenge for our IT folks: Internationalized Internet Drafts,
> > including file names. Doable?
>
> Six or seven years ago we had a big discussion regarding the
> language(s) to be used in the IETF. Harald was IETF Chair when this
> dis
On 2008-03-11 03:42, Russ Housley wrote:
> Ted:
>
>>> I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
>>>
>>>I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>>>reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>>>_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/ge
On 2008-03-09 17:35, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Andrew Newton wrote:
>
>> To Eric, Spencer, and all the other Gen-ART reviewers: Thank you.
>
> +1
>
> And thanks for offering a public list allowing to see what is going
> on,
Just to be clear - the list has a public *archive*
http://www.ietf.o
John,
On 2008-03-09 05:56, John C Klensin wrote:
> I definitely do not want to see a discussion between authors and
> reviewers --especially Area-selected reviewers-- during Last
> Call. It too easily deteriorates into a "satisfy him"
> situation, and those reviewers are not anything special (or
Lakshimnath,
On 2008-03-08 21:12, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
> Reviewers are not accountable for delays.
Well, at least for Gen-ART there is a deadline:
the end of Last Call for LC reviews, and a day or
so before the telechat for pre-IESG reviews.
Obviously, reviewers are human and sometimes
On 2008-03-07 21:10, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
>> The other question is why should the IAB get any special consideration
>> here? Surely, the IESG and the ISOC BoT could ask for more
>> information too and should be privy to the same level of information
>> that
On 2008-03-07 16:10, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>> Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
>>>
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>>
On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> Brian,
>
> A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
> problems related to 3777:
>
> On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
>
>
> How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with "should" and when to disregard "should" being
very precise.
Ted,
Firstly, it's not for me to prejudge the IESG's conclusions
about IONs, but I would suggest that any ION issued by the
IESG implicitly carries the same status as any other IESG
statement, unless rescinded, so I don't quite share your concern.
However, the deeper question is whether the "disc
Keith,
On 2008-02-19 20:02, Keith Moore wrote:
> I hate to rain on the parade, but...
>
>>> 1. ULAs will give enterprises the addressing autonomy that they
>>> seek (as RFC 1918 addresses do with IPv4)
>>
>> Correct. That's available today.
>>
>>> ; but that 2. Enterprises will NOT need to use NA
On 2008-02-20 04:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 19 feb 2008, at 15:40, Dan York wrote:
>
>>> Is this important? The external address(es) are still different.
>
>> Sure, but the home internal networks are identical. So Homeowner A
>> calls up the ISP support and is having a problem gettin
On 2008-02-20 08:34, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
> Not AFAICT in IPv6 :
>
> rfc2460 :
>
>o Unlike IPv4, when UDP packets are originated by an IPv6 node,
> the UDP checksum is not optional. That is, whenever
> originating a UDP packet, an IPv6 node must compute a UDP
601 - 700 of 1831 matches
Mail list logo
