Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the same part of
the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing operators would preserve a
single consistent namespace by issuing names out of a common, shared
pool. In the presence of conflicting
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote, On 27/11/2006 11:27:
Hmmm, Reliable answers and multiple registries for the same TLD in
the same sentence?
Multiple registries imply multiple namespaces. That implies that there
is no coherency, which I interpret as not being reliable.
Fred,
Fred Baker wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
2. The notion that solutions such as precedence and preemption are
(a) requirements and (b) applicable to all applications just doesn't
compute for me.
They don't especially compute for me in the sense
Robert G. Cole wrote:
I whole-heartedly agree. I believe the DoD must extend its notions of
Precedence and Preemption to all applications, voice, video, web, ftp,
mail, etc.
...
This illustrates some of my concerns about this requirements work being
done outside the IETF.
1. The DoD
(Catching up...)
James M. Polk wrote:
...
didn't the IESG, about 18 months ago (it may be longer) write a letter
to either ITU-T or ETSI to stop attempting to extend RSVP, that it was
supposed to be done in the IETF?
I seem to remember that event occuring, though I admit I don't remember
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hi, will the *.ppt slides be converted again to *.html ?
Yes. That's why the proceedings page currently says
(TO BE CONVERTED TO HTML) against them. But it takes time,
and comes after the staff get home and take a well-deserved
rest.
Brian
Hope everyone had a good week, and see you all in Prague!
From a network point of view, I think we had an excellent week,
and many thanks to the whole crew!
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Bob Hinden wrote:
Danny,
What The liaisons are there to provide additional information,
not directly influence the outcome.
Do you have more information on this? If this is true, I think the
result from that Nomcom is questionable. I think this needs to be
investigated and the
Fred Baker wrote:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Frankly the feedback does not need to seen by anyone other than the
voting members IMO. What do others think?
So your point is that the chair of the nominating committee should not
know who the candidates are?
Hi,
We now have a fair amount of guidance on how to work with other
SDO's in general, which would certainly include ITU-T. Just to
summarise:
IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships,
BCP 102, RFC 4052, April 2005.
Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the
This is to let the community know that I am *not* available for
another term as IETF Chair.
This was not a quick decision, and it's due to a combination
of professional and personal circumstances. Also, I will soon
complete a total of ten years in the IAB and IESG combined,
and I believe that is
| 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
| the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer than
| 30 days and to approve alternative methods of mailing list control
| as originally documented in RFC 2418?
The proposal, as a general thing,
My head is spinning.
The draft (ignoring 3683) restores 2418 and adds the extra powers
created by 3934. I've been told by the author of 3934 that removing
the powers created by 2418 was not intended (even though there is
no other way to read the words in 3934). So I think the question on
the
Scott Bradner wrote:
I agree with John K
lets purge 2418, 3683 etc of any language that appears to limit
enforcement options and work things out on a case by case basis
Just to be clear, the intention of sections 1 and 2 of
draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-03 is to remove the limitations
on 2418
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 23 October, 2006 21:22 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
In general, at least as things are now, I would prefer that
this current draft simply be dropped, and the current status
be retained.
The problem with the current status
John,
That is important
input, but I question whether it should be controlling for
either applicants or Nomcom decisions. In particular, while,
e.g., the introduction to the IESG Requirements document
seems to strike about the right balance, it suggests that the
role requires between 25 and 40
Tom,
Tom.Petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF-Announce ietf-announce@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:29 AM
Subject: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' to BCP
(draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)
The IESG has received a
Hi Robert,
Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:46:47 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Actually, this document doesn't *need* to contain any rationale.
| The question is whether the community agrees
The draft says three ADs, 10:2 could pass. Was this alternative
procedure ever used ?
Rarely if ever, but we have come close several times and found
a compromis instead.
I'm a bit perplexed that there's no timeout
for a pending DISCUSS. Nothing rush, a year or so, enough time to
discuss
Sam Hartman wrote:
We almost used the alternative procedure on the DHCP civil addresses
draft. We almost used the alternative procedure on the unique local
addresses draft.
Right, but the keyword is almost.
We used the alternate procedure on both PR actions even though they
are not really
John C Klensin wrote:
Andrew,
Let me suggest, and suggest to the Nomcom, that these
requirements are the opinions of the incumbents of what it
takes to do the jobs as they see them.
To be very precise, and speaking only about the IESG
positions since I can't speak for the IAB on this, those
Just a couple of points since I think my colleagues have covered
most of this.
matches that at http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html,
Note that this document is part of the current informal set of
operational notes, and is pretty sure to become an early ION under
RFC 4693, as
Note that RFC 3619 is a document published for the information of the
Internet community, via the RFC Editor, and not as part of the IETF
standards process; I don't believe that the IETF makes any requirement
on patent disclosure on such documents.
Well, any I-D that contains the required
Bill Fenner wrote:
On 10/16/06, Yaakov Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When clicking on
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html
one gets the event calendar that was posted a while ago.
This may be an artifact of your system caching a previous result, as
that document is solely a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm wondering if someone can refer me to any organizations/businesses that
can provide an independent review of software for verification
validation of RFC compliance? I've seen a couple older threads on this
mailing list that suggest they don't exist, and that
for all current disclosures to the IETF.
Sorry but this is something your company has to resolve
for itself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Bill Su wrote:
Hi,
We are implementing an Ethernet protection ring. Then we found
I'd like to observe that the IASA was created so that the IETF as
a whole wouldn't need to bother about these administrative matters.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
John C Klensin wrote:
...
Eliot,
It seems to me that, if there is a right track here --and that
is not obvious to me-- that you are on it or at least on a
parallel one. I suggest that implies several changes to the
draft, YMMD:
(1) The supporter procedure/requirement should be
But if you mean that IETF non-members should stay away from
important policy-related things like the dispute resolution process or
Certainly not; that's part of the standards process, which is
explicitly excluded from IASA scope.
the very nature of the IETF (incorporated or not, in a
I apologise for this message having reached the list,
since the person who sent it is currently supposed to have
his posting rights suspended. An administrative issue.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Of course, see (2) above. But the question was about a formal
agreement with ISO, and I am reasonably certain that no such
agreement exists. Certainly it did not exist in the mid-, or
even late-, 90s.
It never existed. Liaison letters with a few JTC1 SCs were
signed around 1992.
Brian
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is better that we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to
the complainer(s).
As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past ... I think he's right
in this case. In my opinion, any sort of
I run a very closed network, ports are closed and not opened unless there is
a validated request, external drives are disabled etc etc. A contractor
comes in with a notebook and needs to work on some files located on our
internal secure network. A trusted staff member rings in with the
This is what I meant when I said that the charter is unclear
and it must explicitly state that NEA is not meant as a
protection mechanism of any sort for the network.
I don't believe the Charter needs to delve into this at all. If some people
see it as part of their protection mechanisms,
Agreed, we should work to fix that.
...
The IETF has an obligation to WIPO and to the DMCA
...
I can only assume this was intended as some form of joke.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
, how actual practice interprets the formal rules. I'm not
sure you've read it in that spirit.
Brian
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Quite seriously - am I to conclude from the absence of comments
on that draft that everyone agrees that it correctly describes
current practice
If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to
be to document current practice. I see no chance of making
forward progress on actual changes without first having a
consensus as to what our current state is.
Brian Carpenter has written draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-02.txt
John,
Or, perhaps I'm completely wrong about the sense of the
community. But I would suggest and ask that, before any more of
these documents are pushed or Last Called, you try to determine
the degree to which the community just does not want to deal
with these issues for a while.
As said in
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For what it is worth my takehome from the Montreal meeting was that there was
genuine desire for change but no recognition of consensus on a particular way
forward.
One of the reasons that there is no recognition of consensus on a way forward
is that we did not
Eliot Lear wrote:
I garbled:
To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Well, there wasn't likely to be a blank check promise to advance
a draft, was there?
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle and align
theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
Brian
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants that
produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed Standards,
so the appropriate
Tim Chown wrote:
Isn't he barred from posting here?
If by he you mean Dean Anderson, yes.
As I observed, the delete key is handy.
Brian
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson.
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome
of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent.
As Phill knows, and in fact has in common with me, I grew up professionally
while providing services to
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2006 06:06:08 PM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are correct. I did not address that issue, partially
because, personally, I do not consider it very important. While
documenting what we are doing would be nice, I don't
I have indeed asked the sergeants-at-arms to consider this
under RFC 3005.
Brian
Sam Hartman wrote:
Pekka == Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pekka I'd be more than happy to support a move to ban Mr
Pekka Glassey. Is it time for a PR-action ?
I don't understand why RFC
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
First you focused on ambiguity, when that seems pretty clearly not to
be the issue -- although I note that you have not responded to that
observation.
IMHO RFC3777, like most RFCs, contains ambiguity, imprecision
and gaps. That's why we revise RFCs from time to time,
Dave,
2. The nomcom is independent of the IESG and the IAB. Hence,
consultation with either of them, for deciding how to resolve nomcom
problems, creates an inherent conflict of interest.
If that had happened, it would have been a CoI. As Leslie and I
already made clear, it didn't.
I think that you are confusing the meaning of to consult with to
decide.
No, Dave, you are confusing IESG and IETF Chair, and IAB and
IAB Chair. Leslie and I were copied; the IESG and IAB were not.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Sam gave me a heads up this comment was coming (on the last day
of the Last Call, as it happens) so I had the chance to think about
it overnight.
We certainly could use clarity in this area. I also have some comments
about the meaning of interoperable implementations in
Okay, let's nail this, I like to see 2195 and 3464 as DS,
what exactly can I do ?
3464 is already DS according to the RFC Index.
For 2195, write and publish an interoperability report, and
if {all mandatory and optional features shown to interoperate}
then {send a request to reclassify
Assertion:
The IETF still operates as if no other body exists.
Fact:
http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-Original Message-
From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 September, 2006 12:57
To: Frank Ellermann
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: what happened to newtrk?
Okay, let's nail this, I like to see 2195 and 3464 as DS,
what exactly can I do ?
3464 is already DS
Edward Lewis wrote:
...
I don't think it makes much of a difference in the outcome of the nomcom
if names are published or not. (OTOH it is yet another perennial issue
to blow bits on a mailing list about.) How about we just try it once
and see what happens - all that stuff about running
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As this year's
glitch
shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules.
Interesting. What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every
contingency.
Hence what it showed me
Looking at the current RFC editor queue, I count 25 IETF documents in
MISSREF*R state. A good number of been waiting for roughly a year, one
document for nearly 3.
Let's be clear that the experiment wouldn't automatically release
all of those 25 documents. It would only allow ones to be
...
I also share your discomfort with the nomcom chair's decision
to consult the IETF chair, although my discomfort falls short
of wanting to see some formal rule against it happening.
Well, let me observe that if there had been a formal rule,
it would have been observed. And as a matter of
Marshall,
Members of the IETF community must have registered for and attended at
least 3 of...
(Yes, people do sneak in - why should they be allowed to be on the
Nomcom ?)
This is not an issue in practice. The list that is used for the
check is the list of those registered on site;
Brian what in the world are you thinking? Given that the issue involved here
is the integrity of the NOMCOM process, it deserves no more notification
than a posting on the announce list?
The ietf-announce list is where all our formal announcements
go, and it reaches many more people than this
at the Secretariat
on the day in question, so this might not have been completely
straightforward.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 31 August, 2006 09:38 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to
Lynn and
Andrew when I became aware
, August 31, 2006 10:25 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF-Discussion; Michael StJohns
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
...
The correct thing to do now is to reject the reest and stick with the
original list. The only case where a reset should
Mike,
As it happens the liaisons were both chosen some time ago,
by definition with no knowledge of the chosen volunteers.
We are not going to change the rules on the fly, are we?
Brian
Michael StJohns wrote:
One of the things missing from this years list of volunteers is their
Richard Shockey wrote:
This seems to be on the IETF NOMCOM web page but I do not see it in the
ietf@ietf.org archives.
I suggest that given the unique importance of this NOMCOM cycle that a
fuller explanation is in order.
First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community should
Mike and Phill,
Phill's assertion is wrong - the IAB and IESG has no control over
this; such decisions are between the Nomcom Chair and the ISOC President.
I don't see anything in RFC 3777 that sends disputes back to
the community. In this case, nobody even got as far as invoking the
dispute
Hello,
The RFC Editor already knows the error in RFC2812 but not in RFC2813.
See http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html. Please tell the RFC
Editor about the error in RFC2813.
Please see RFC4234 for the full definition of Augmented BNF.
Section 3.6 explains * .
Thanks
Brian Carpenter
IETF
: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: IBM
To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Here are my conclusions from the plenary discussion
and the General Area open meeting at IETF 66.
1. Conclusions from plenary discussion on Newtrk issues
(draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt)
A clear
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I suggest that instead of disturbing a couple of thousand people
with this discussion, it would be profitable to take it up
with the RAI Area Directors. They certainly know more about it
than I do.
The problem, Brian, is that the discussion
Eliot Lear wrote:
Paul E. Jones wrote:
I wonder how customers might react to seeing new gateway hardware produced
utilizing historic RFCs. What does that mean?
It means that one standards body has decided to cite a specification
that has been deprecated by another.
It would have been
Paul E. Jones wrote:
Eliot,
So, this is a difference of opinion. There is no process in place through
which such things can be discussed at organization/organization level. The
IETF does not have a formal liaison process like the ITU, ETSI, or other
standards bodies. There is a liaison
formats might also change. Perhaps it will be Microsoft's
new XPS?
Paul
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:53 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Eliot Lear
Cc: Paul E. Jones; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 4612
Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian This is a personal draft written following some discussion
Brian in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome.
Brian I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with
Brian http
This is a personal draft written following some discussion
in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome.
I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt
Brian
Original Message
Subject:
Because the IESG believed that specifying an image format
as an audio subtype was to be discouraged, but should be documented
for reference.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_commentid=42143
The standard MIME type for T.38 is image/t38 (RFC 3362).
Brian
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Because the IESG believed that specifying an image format
as an audio subtype was to be discouraged, but should be documented
for reference.
Historically, documenting for reference produces an Informational status,
rather than Historic.
Yes
I'd like to ask for comment on draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-01.txt.
The reason it was written in this particular form is that the IETF
has never really set down its procedures for how extensions to
IETF protocols should be handled, if they originate outside the
IETF. It's a practical
Where will it say that IETF BCPs apply as relevant?
That is in the markup I have sent to Ray, so I hope
it will be in the next version...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi,
There are draft minutes of the Wednesday plenary in
Montreal at:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/minutes/plenaryw.txt
If you spoke, please review them and let me know
of any discrepancies. The discussion starts at ietm 6.
Brian
___
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/minutes/genarea.txt
Corrections welcome.
The slides can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=66
(search for GENAREA)
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
...
My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
series will be under the contract holder's management in some
way, allowing input from the editor. I want to urge this
just because the RFC series is shared by four streams.
Ted is correct. The harm to the Internet text is wrong -
it isn't mentioned on 2026 and it is excluded from consideration
by 3932 - but we shouldn't mix fixing that bug in the RFP
with fixing the procedural issues.
Brian
Ted Hardie wrote:
At 7:25 PM -0400 7/25/06, John C Klensin wrote:
I'm going to comment on Allison's original posting, since the target
is specific text changes to the RFP. (I have read the follow-ups).
Allison Mankin wrote:
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
Gray, Eric wrote:
List of attendees? Surely that is actually independent of the minutes...
It's actually required (should) as part of the minutes by RFC 2418.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I'd be interested in any comments on draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00.txt
in this context.
Brian
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that the process itself was
unfair and has failed to produce a proper result, if
Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach
than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva
has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK).
I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach,
but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily
in non-hub cities?
Speaking only for myself, I have always read the words
Further recourse is available... at the beginning of
section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026 to mean that an appeal to the
ISOC Board can only follow rejection of an appeal by both
the IESG and IAB. Therefore, in my opinion, it is required
for the IESG to
Pete,
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/10/06 at 8:34 AM -0400, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
we seek comments on the Statement of Work located at:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/
- The SOW has nothing about performance expectations (i.e., what is
noted in section 4 of
It's fun to chat but there are 2000+ people here so maybe the topic is
exhausted?
At least please change the Subject when you change the subject.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The SOW will be aligned with the final version
of draft-mankin-pub-req, whose text has been adjusted
for this point in version 10.
Brian
Sam Hartman wrote:
I do not support Stewart's comment.
However I will note that our current process requires the rfc-editor
to accept ASCII input along
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The SOW will be aligned with the final version
of draft-mankin-pub-req, whose text has been adjusted
for this point in version 10.
I just greped v10 and there is no reference to pdf, nor to ps,
nor to RFC2223.
Your grep missed text, portable
be presented clearly.
You reply with yet another piece of insider information.
The Web site is the front door to the organization. For the past ten years it has been treated as an afterthought.
Phill
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL
Phill,
When you have operational questions about the site and any other
secretriat operations, could you please start by writing to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If that doesn't work you can escalate to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Just a reminder that we will spend a little time on
the question asked by this draft in plenary on Wednesday.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
So, Phill, how about a polite note to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggesting that they add a link to
1id-abstracts.txt and to the ftp directory
to the page at http://www.ietf.org/ID.html?
Incidentally, if you type 'abstracts' into the search box
at www.ietf.org, the first hit is the
The IAD has just confirmed to me that this is in our
contract - if you booked in the IETF block, please insist
with the hotel.
Brian
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
on 2006-07-06 00:57 Elwyn Davies said the following:
Allegedly, if you have a booking in the IETF block, the Internet
connection is
I think the dkim part of this thread has gone about as far
as it can. So can we just wait patiently for Keith's draft now?
Brian
Keith Moore wrote:
And everyone else has pointed out 'there is a problem here but I am not going
to tell you what it is' is not a useful mode of discourse.
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think that there should be a fixed rule prohibiting members of
the IESG being WG chairs. I would also include the IETF
chair in this.
Most ADs positively want to drop their WG chairships in a hurry,
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Who does or will pay for the IANA function? Does funding come from
IASA, ICANN, or some other source?
To my knowledge, it's ICANN, not the IETF.
Ray
Yes, this has been an ICANN
Ned Freed wrote:
I think that the single change most likely to keep WGs on track is to ensure
that they do not have a single dominant participant, eg one who is both chair
and
author of key I-Ds. The WGs I see most at risk of going round in circles and/or
producing output that falls short of
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Who does or will pay for the IANA function? Does funding come from
IASA, ICANN, or some other source?
To my knowledge, it's ICANN, not the IETF.
Ray
Yes, this has been an ICANN contribution to the community since
the creation of ICANN, when
901 - 1000 of 1719 matches
Mail list logo
