Hello,
On 10/10/13 4:30 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and
where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).
when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly-
this
Hello,
On 8/16/13 11:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
As someone who just spent $3.5K out of pocket to show up in Berlin, I
have a hard time being sympathetic to someone who won't participate
because he has to spend $100 out of pocket.
Funny reading that under the light of the IETF worried about
Understandable. After all, they need to bail out whole countries on a
regular basis
:)
On 7/5/13 1:11 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
what's different in Berlin from Paris and Prague and Maastricht.
The Germans have more 'zealous' tax collectors? :-)
+1!
On 6/20/13 3:13 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
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
As long the subject clearly identifies a last call request thread, I
don't see why the LC's cannot stay here.
There are already too many mailing lists in the world.
My humble opinion.
~Carlos
On 6/7/13 5:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/7/13 11:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for
Jorge,
I seriously believe you're overreacting and overrepresenting the actual
view of the people in Argentina. Few, if any, members of the Internet
community in Argentina and neighboring countries share this view, and
almost all of us can't help laughing at the ironic situation where some
people
Whether OT or not you actively contribute to the mood of the discussion.
And to have a fruitful discussion on the topic I believe we MUST
accurately represent the facts, again, regardless of being OT or not.
~Carlos
On 5/31/13 3:07 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Carlos, I clearly stated that the
We now live in a blessed, sort-of, time, where you perhaps have
in-flight Internet but no-one presumes you do, so you get the Internet
and its benefits without the constant distraction of other people
calling, emailing and expecting immediate answers and all that :D
Completely off-topic too, but
You are right, Wellington is almost 7 degrees south of Montevideo,
although I hope it's better served by airlines :D
cheers!
~C.
On 5/31/13 3:24 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Completely off-topic too, but since I live in the southernmost capital
city of the world, and certainly not the best
The bad things that happen in Argentina financially affect only
Argentinians. I'm not saying this is a good thing overall, just saying
that this isn't a problem for tourists and certainly won't be a problem
for IETFers.
Probably these financial 'issues' will even affect positively the
Just to echo in some form what others have said, I believe that an
intermediate stage between I-D and RFC is needed.
I don't have a name for it, but conceptually would be something like
'feature freeze', e.g. no more tweakings to the protocol, or base spec
are to be introduced (unless a major
Not answering any specific email, just establishing position:
- I support a newcomers' list. However, I do believe that the definition
of newcomer must be relaxed a bit. A newcomer is not a 'first time
attendee'. Being a IETF youngster I would say that for the first three
meetings you are a
I wasn't offended either, but I can see how some people might have felt.
Moving on, what I do believe is that many i-d's could benefit from a
review by a linguist.
This role, IMO, is different from the role of an editor. The linguist
doesn't need to have any technical background. He is more like
Oh, I forgot: NOW TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER !!
:D
On 3/12/13 5:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
I wasn't offended either, but I can see how some people might have felt.
Moving on, what I do believe is that many i-d's could benefit from a
review by a linguist.
This role, IMO, is different
Not answering to anyone in particular.
I agree that BarBOFs are useful, I just wish they were better
communicated. If I had learnt about which ones were happening I might
have joined.
cheers
~Carlos
On 3/11/13 9:56 PM, Burger Eric wrote:
I think Michael's point is that because a BOF only has
What about possibly 'open' social networks? I remember Quora intended to
become something like that. What about something the whateverOverflow
sites (StackOverflow, etc). IMO they are some of the best managed
technical 'social' sites out there, they do a great job.
I can easily imagine a
Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ?
Use all evil bits for IP addresses and we'll soon have no need for IPv6.
:D
~C.
On 2/15/13 6:45 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
, navigation
aids and similar applications), but, IMO, is a less demanding/critical
task than it used to be, and thus the workload for the ITU-R should be
less than it used to be.
cheers!
~Carlos
On 1/2/13 3:34 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
Carlos M. Martinez
Radio spectrum allocation
My only point is that it is not what is used to be. But we can agree to
disagree.
Happy new year all by the way.
~C.
On 1/3/13 11:21 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I'd like my mobile phone to work all round the world, as it does. It takes
more than one band, but only a few. And that
Hi!
On 12/29/12 4:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com
mailto:jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union
before AG Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of
Hello,
On 11/16/12 1:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done.
I don't remember when I
On 11/15/12 3:15 PM, John R Levine wrote:
As Arturo says, having people that traditionally go to an IETF meeting
travel to (for them) far away places and (for them) new cultures, do
definitely open their eyes to how large our world is.
I think that learning about other parts of the world is
Hello,
On 11/15/12 6:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 15/11/2012 03:43, Melinda Shore wrote:
We'd reached 50 attendees from China at IETF 63 before we even
started seriously negotiating the Beijing meeting. It seems to
me that the causality is mainly in the opposite direction:
Shore wrote:
On 11/15/12 8:47 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
I do believe that regions wanting to have an IETF meeting should also
give back in terms of active participation, I agree with that.
I really think there's an enormous disconnect here. I'm really unclear
on how this is supposed
Hi,
On 11/15/2012 5:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/15/2012 9:43 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
be more open.
It's important to distinguish between
On 11/12/12 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
...
... snip ...
There's no doubt that personal attendance is the best way to get a full
understanding of how the IETF works, but remote participation is
supposed to work.
I fully agree. However,
On 11/14/12 3:00 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 11/14/2012 04:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
I've had much better remote
participation experiences in other conferences than I've had with the IETF.
Can you provide pointers?
Ta,
S.
I'll take the silence as a NO :-)
So, as a humble kinda newcomer, where should I take some ideas regarding
IPv6 mibs ? Which should be the appropiate WG ?
Cheers!
~Carlos
On 11/5/2012 7:18 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-11-05 19:10, Carlos M. martinez a écrit :
Other than the CGN-mib we
Other than the CGN-mib we discussed today in sunset4, I wondered whether
is there ongoing work on this topic.
regards
Carlos
Right, I have this thing that mentions to CGN somehow mean 'ipv6' to me,
or rather, 'i don't want to do ipv6'
But you are right, there is nothing specific to ipv6 in your work.
~Carlos
On 11/5/2012 7:18 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-11-05 19:10, Carlos M. martinez a écrit :
Other than
Fond memories of my first IETF... We were stuck at a highway exit for 4
hours unable to either cross the swollen river that had been a side road
minutes before or to go back.
:=)
~Carlos
On 8/16/12 4:48 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
ah, the memories ...
Tony Hansen
On 8/16/2012 2:31 PM,
31 matches
Mail list logo
