On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, my comment meant that it is a reply to the review message that there may
be not clear definition from other participant point of view. Sorry my review
is still not complete, I will send it. Do you mean my
On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
disagree. The IAB
On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org wrote:
On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org
wrote:
But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
to do a few days comment period for such
The audio recordings for every session recorded ietf87 are at:
http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf87/
meetecho, which does a subset, is here
http://ietf87.conf.meetecho.com/
On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:52 PM, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Side question -
I am wondering
On 9/22/13 11:35 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I like what Christian said. Also, perhaps we should figure out how to
unbundle services and monetize what we can.
On Sep 22, 2013 1:38 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com
mailto:huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
Yes. $$$. Nobody makes
On 9/16/13 7:39 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
[First post here]
Hello,
I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and
there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the
problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names).
Like many
On 9/11/13 9:39 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote:
The queue for dicussion of this point is closed. If there needs to be an
appeal on this point now or in the future, then I'll be happy to help
On 9/11/13 2:40 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.
This document seems to me to be:
1. Out of scope for the IETF.
Please define what is the IETF scope? IMHO, IETF is scoped to do with
IPv6 devices
On 9/9/13 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.
This document seems to me to be:
1.Out of scope for the IETF.
AD here... let's put this one to bed. there are existance proof(s) of
previous work in this area and others that covers similar ground.
I don't
On 9/9/13 4:24 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
The document explicitly says “This document is not a standard.”
since version -00.
__ __
What additional statement you would
On 9/8/13 10:37 AM, SM wrote:
At 07:07 08-09-2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You mean like Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia
There were people from Pakistan who participated in the IETF. I recall
an email exchange where a person from that country received an
unpleasant comment from
On 9/8/13 4:36 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Joel,
At 11:59 08-09-2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
Should your tools, the contents of your mind, and the various effects
and context of your personal communication become instruments of
state-power? Because the tools we've built are certainly capable
On 8/1/13 6:25 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 8/1/13 1:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Consensus for any particular outcome is in the end a judgment call.
Well, yes and no, but this situation strikes me as odd, and probably
a mistake on the part of the chairs. If you can't tell whether or
not you've
On 8/2/13 8:50 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
ISP business model.
So this is
On 8/2/13 12:58 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Venue was great, food options here and in the city were great, all-around
great experience. Let's come again!
(I do kinda wonder how there wasn't a single local company willing to step up
to be the host. That's embarrassing to me as a German, esp. if
On 8/1/13 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not.
Consensus for any
On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Captchas? Recaptchas?
Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
the obvious one is simply a requirement to use your ietf tools
credientials to post.
Regards,
as
On 7/30/13 4:34 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Arturo:
Now,
On 7/24/13 9:07 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 06:43 -0800 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/13 12:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Yes. I was thinking a bit more generally. For example,
schedule changes during the meeting week, IIR, go to NNall,
and
On 7/11/13 5:55 PM, Will Liu (Shucheng) wrote:
Folks,
I am a little confused by the following words. The sum for an early
bird is 650$, right? Or do we need to pay extra VAT (which make the
sum larger than 650$)? The last sentence is really confusing.
The vat is included. $650 is what
On 6/20/13 10:04 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I agree with at least a little of what each of Olafur, John, and
Andrew have said; but I think there's a middle ground between throw
the doors wide open and everything we have tried before didn't
work. At least I hope there is.
Well recall that we
Given that this document was revved twice and had it's requested status
change during IETF last call in response to discussion criticism and new
contribution I am going to rerun the last call.
Thanks
joel
On 5/20/13 6:44 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual
On 6/19/13 9:01 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
Looking back in hindsight, what would help is to have some means for
the IETF to provide a maintenance vehicle for it's products. Or
realize that the waterfall model that seems to be in place is no
longer appropriate. (As if you've never heard that
The last call is being rerun to capture an import change to the
rfc5101bis namely the requested status for Specification of the IP Flow
Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow
Information Internet Standard rather than proposed.
Thank you
Joel
On 6/14/13 3:24 PM, The IESG
On 6/12/13 9:42 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have
more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF
participant than Pete does...
FWIW, until I read
-Type
assignments remains controversial, I will likely withdraw my sponsorship
of this draft.
Thanks
joel
On 5/27/13 5:40 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 5/20/13 6:44 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Resource
On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com
mailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail
On 6/6/13 3:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from
them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned
in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last
reminder). The message [3] proposes using
On 5/31/13 12:18 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2013 8:12 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of related
meeting rooms.
is dirigible a new term of endearment for an AD?
Obviously the ADs
On 5/28/13 8:18 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off
having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or
having them documented.
there are two solutions to this
Probably more than two if your comment indicates that you agree
that having
On 5/23/13 8:02 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On May 23, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
So the question is why we aren't seeing more drafts, reviews, and
discussions from people in Central and South America,
Language?
It would seem likely when the participation is
On 5/28/13 9:41 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Joe,
At 03:12 28-05-2013, Joe Abley wrote:
Note that there's no suggestion that these RRTypes are required by the
CRTC. The example given was for a situation where Interop would have
been beneficial (so that cable resellers have an obvious, stable and
supported
On 5/28/13 11:56 AM, Christian O'Flaherty wrote:
It would seem likely when the participation is heaviliy biased towards
equipment vendors and software tooling that the participants would be more
representative of where the concentration of the development sideo of that
work occurs.
This is
On 5/20/13 6:44 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS'
draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt as Proposed Standard
I would direct the
On 5/26/13 4:01 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Edwin,
At 13:59 26-05-2013, Edwin A. Opare wrote:
The awareness creation should start at the grassroots level : The
Universities!. Train the soon-to-graduate Computer
Scientist/Engineer on the values and essence of the IETF and it'll
forever be with them even
On 5/24/13 10:43 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
While it's unlikely that I would be able to attend, I think it's an
excellent idea for reasons already better stated by others, and BA is
a very nice city.
The only suggestion I might add that I haven't seen mentioned yet (and
pardon me if I missed it)
On 5/24/13 11:05 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 5/24/13 10:43 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
While it's unlikely that I would be able to attend, I think
it's an excellent idea for reasons
On 5/24/13 11:24 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 05/24/2013 11:21 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
The consistent feedback regarding non-conflict as long as I been
involved in this tends to indicate otherwise. 18-months to 2 years seems
much more reasonable to me personally.
Joel,
You're making several
On 5/24/13 11:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 05/24/2013 11:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
probably because I've been involved in the planning loop since 44.
... and you're also involved in planning for LACNIC, LACTLD, LACNOG,
and every other regional organization in Latin America that might
On 5/20/13 6:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 21/05/2013 13:06, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 19:49 -0400 Rob Austein
s...@hactrn.net wrote:
At Mon, 20 May 2013 10:18:21 -0400, John C. Klensin wrote:
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given
On 5/21/13 8:06 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
All I'm asking for is that, if you
want this as a Proposed Standard you carefully and convincingly
describe your design rationale. I want that both because it
seems generally appropriate in this case and because, if someone
comes along and wants to
On 5/21/13 9:02 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
2119 language is intended to describe requirements of
standards-track documents.Informational documents cannot impose
requirements.
Then
On 5/20/13 7:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 06:44 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS'
On 5/20/13 8:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 20, 2013 07:53 -0700 joel jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
...
This is not my primary (or even secondary) area of expertise
but, given that the RR space is not unlimited even though it
is large, wouldn't it be better to have a single
On 5/16/13 10:01 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/16/2013 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments
during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some
On 5/16/13 2:58 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this
field fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language
is used in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible
enough is
On 5/7/13 12:07 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt as Best Current Practice
On 5/1/13 2:10 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 1, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote:
Let's rename last call to
something like IETF review and stop giving people the wrong
expectations. Review outside the WG is vital, can be done repeatedly,
and must be done by the whole IETF at
On 5/3/13 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 04/05/2013 09:22, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work
and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only
succeed with professional (=paid) editors.
I think I disagree, if
On 5/2/13 11:14 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
b) There is no interest to research where delay really happen. Your
statistics just tell that there is delay but not why (of course). From
my own experience I noticed that there are many reasons for delay and
I am not sure I can blame it to the
On 4/30/13 8:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just picking a couple of points for further comment:
On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
Hi, Robert
...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
...
The document
On 4/8/13 9:18 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Mar 31, 2013, at 1:23 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
mailto:do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 03/30/2013 11:26 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical. Since IP
address reputation has been a primary
this late but I thought I'd comment on one part of it.
On 3/20/13 3:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and the development
of the IETF to focus on more particular core aspects of the Internet (like
routing) as opposed to what the small shops
On 3/25/13 1:57 PM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:11 AM
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got the IESG
On 3/18/13 6:04 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I am wondering if the draft should mention that Local Internet
Registries (LIRs) may sometimes take the form of National Internet
Registries (NIRs) since this is now a reality in some places?
All of the NIRs I've encountered can be construed as LIRs under
On 3/13/13 10:24 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Subject: Re: Martians
Martian is nice expression.
Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet
work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art, I think that's
it.
On 3/9/13 1:46 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).
I've puzzled by this statement nomcom did a bad job.
How could we, people outside of noncom, know that they did a bad job?
On 3/6/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Mike,
At 08:44 06-03-2013, Michael StJohns wrote:
I would suggest that it's probably time to re-convene the how do we
select people working group. Given the number of issues - recall,
IAOC, this, ineligible others - we've encountered lately, I don't
think
On 3/3/13 4:12 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
On 03/03/2013 01:37, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/2/13 2:42 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
I'd suggest you redo your analysis. It doesn't have a lot to do with
reality in the working groups I'm in.
I wonder if he's basing this on the main discussion
On 3/3/13 1:51 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
joel == joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes:
joel http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/countrydistrhist.html
joel blue = china grey = japan
joel http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/countrydistr.html
The colours are alas confusing
On 3/2/13 8:15 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
Please let us know ahead of time if you have specific questions you would like
to see discussed.
I would find it as useful if IAOC would have a public maillist, where location
options could be discussed well before the meeting site
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
On 2/26/13 2:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Dale,
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:
All Final Version
On 2/25/13 10:36 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
In light of the upcoming meeting in Orlando, I have updated the
document. For folks that are not on the IETF-86 attendees list, we've
had a fairly lengthy discussion about the remoteness of the venue and
the lack of access to food other than the hotel
On 2/25/13 5:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Don't think so:
mnot-mini:~ date -u
Tue 26 Feb 2013 01:01:29 UTC
On 26/02/2013, at 11:58 AM, James Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
At 06:50 PM 2/25/2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/25/13 5:47 PM,
On 2/16/13 12:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 15/02/2013 20:57, Keith Moore wrote:
...
But this makes me realize that there's a related issue. An expectation
that WG meetings are for presentations, leads to an expectation that
there's lots of opportunity to present suggestions for new work
On 2/11/13 2:34 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi SM,
thanks for your email, my reply inline;
On 2/11/13, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
Eric Burger provided some information about acknowledgements in a
message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77076.html
On 2/11/13 3:32 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
On 2/12/13, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Do you mean that IETF is producing what it does not own, or IETF has
no right to edit/amend a document that it is publishing? I
misunderstand your point,
Once an RFC number is issued
On 2/11/13 5:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
3.4. Slide Sharing
Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting.
WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed
by the
remote participants. These are controlled by the
On 2/5/13 8:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
Please see the attached report on the current status of remote participation in
the IETF meeting. Please notice at the end a call for potential experiments to
explore ways that we can improve remote participation.
Thank(s) for doing the summary, I believe
On 2/3/13 1:04 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 02/03/13 11:29, Lixia Zhang li...@cs.ucla.edu allegedly wrote:
I believe what AB suggested is a historical record specifically for each
WG: what you started with, what you went through, how you ended, what you
have learned, both principles and lessons.
On 2/3/13 1:23 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 03/02/2013 21:17, joel jaeggli wrote:
Having responded to an appeal associated with handling of a WG document,
there can easily be 2000k worth of messages sitting in the archives arcoss
multiple lists for a given document.
I forsee many phds
for interoperability, or
successful deployment. I personally believe that IETF working groups are a fine
job in writing code along with their specification work.
Ciao
Hannes
On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 23/01/2013 04:14, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/22/13 12:34 AM, Hannes
On 1/22/13 8:29 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
Do none of you know what the phrase a modest proposal refers to?
We should kill and eat more internet drafts before they reach one year
of age.
Try googling it.
Janet
ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 01/21/2013 11:57:22 PM:
From: William Jordan
On 1/22/13 12:34 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Another example from a different area: Why do we need so many
transition technologies for the migration from IPv4 to IPv6? Wouldn't
it be less complex to just have one transition mechanism?
You mean no transition mechanisms...
On 12/4/12 12:28 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
Hi Brian,
The point is that we work in public, so the whole community should
know.
Working group mailing lists are also public.
I regularly attend WG meetings where I am not subscribed - it's one of
the
side benefits of the
On 12/2/12 10:06 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 12/02/2012 12:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/2/2012 9:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
I think you're missing the point. The core problem is the overuse of
presentations, and presentation tools, for working group face to face
meeting time which is
On 12/2/12 11:15 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 12/02/2012 01:46 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both
working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We
should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the
discussion
On 12/2/12 19:02 , Keith Moore wrote:\
I saw very little productive discussion happening in Atlanta in the vast
majority of working group meetings which I attended. True, there were
times when people queued up at the microphones. (though that's actually
a pretty inefficient way to have a
On 12/2/12 19:52 , Randy Bush wrote:
I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management
discipline.
i know it's a leap, but maybe presume people are adults
and that everyone of them has a microphone
On 12/2/12 8:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor
management discipline.
i know it's a leap, but maybe presume people are adults
and that everyone of them has a microphone
so we build our meetings around the fears, will someone speak
On 11/27/12 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
and I think that the IETF web site has it about
On 11/14/12 7:39 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Also, for it
would be good for the ietf community know, see and live other realities,
different needs, and perhaps more constrained that the normal that we
used to.
Regards,
as
I have not contributed to the IETF activity since the 44th meeting
On 11/11/12 3:59 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I don't think that thoes Canada and US participants are paying for
the attendance, but their organisations, therefore, are we reducing
the cost of other organisations, or we are interested to bring more
participants.
Many participants, myself
On 11/9/12 8:00 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Brian,
Your comment just reinforce my perception that the IETF is not
interested in being an global organization of standards.
People is asking how to evolve the IETF, well, one possibility is to
start thinking global and to reach more people
On 11/8/12 8:12 AM, SM wrote:
Hello,
I was given the following link at the plenary:
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IANA-ietf85-nov2012.pdf and it turned
out to be a 404. Could the IAOC please fix the link?
According to the the IAOC report there was one large interim meeting
where 38
Greetings,
For those interested in monitoring sessions or participating remotely the
following information may prove useful.
For general remote participation including meetecho support see:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/85/remote-participation.html
-Audio Streaming-
All 8 parallel tracks at
Mike,
A 3777 recall isn't dependent on the wishes of the IAOC...
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2012, at 19:22, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
mime-attachment.txt
On 10/26/12 9:00 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Thank you, Joel, for putting pen to paper (pixels to glass?) on this,
and thank you, Jari, Randy, and Warren for sharing your thoughts.
As was pointed out, we've had conversations about LIMs previously. It
might be worth asking Ray to provide a
On 10/23/12 4:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points.
I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community
if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would
be true if the IAOC had
On 10/23/12 4:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points.
I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community
if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would
be true if the IAOC had
On 10/15/12 2:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
ok, i am lost. the draft is only an outline and has zero content? is
it a quiz?
Treat it like that and see if you can give Joel the right answers.
01 is available. I imagine the SIDR experience was a bit different,
having been to another SIDR
On 10/15/12 2:53 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ok, i am lost. the draft is only an outline and has zero content? is
it a quiz?
No, I believe that it is very subtle satire, reflecting Joel's view on the
utility of the meeting :-P
or
There are abundant examples of successful document editors and authors
and the occasional area director working at a distance, some cases are
harder than others.
The part that is hard to replace is, the opportunity for collegiality,
for cross pollination, and many fine lunches and dinners.
On 9/18/12 11:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we
got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned.
Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't
On 9/3/12 18:29 , Sam Hartman wrote:
I strongly urge the IESG to be significantly more liberal in the cases
where an I-D will be removed from the archive.
I can think of a number of cases where I'd hope that the IESg would be
cooperative:
1) the IETF recieves a DMCA take-down notice or
On 8/17/12 12:05 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Bob,
Is there any way to broaden the scope of IAOC choice and provide the
candidate locations which would meet IETF criteria by any IETF member ?
For example once I know the criteria I could check around in Poland to
see if there is any place
On 8/17/12 12:20 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hotel contracts by their nature need to be negotiated under mutual
NDA unless you want all the vendors in the region to mysteriously
arrive at the same lower bound.
All hotel rates are wide open and published on IETF web page. It's an
interesting
On 8/15/12 9:49 PM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
Hi All,
In my humble opinion I totally agree with Arturo. So far I do know
several cities in Latin America and I believe Sao Paulo (Brazil) or
Cancun (Mexico) might be a good options. Of course there are many more
good cities, those ware the first
On 8/11/12 10:13 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
One problem with excessively large fields, including variable length
addresses with a high maximum length, is that the next time someone
wants to encode some additional information, they just tuck it inside
that field in some quasi-proprietary way,
On 8/10/12 9:30 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
Frankfurt as the Minneapolis of Europe: central, well-connected, cold,
unglamorous. -T
Also home of the ECB and the Bundesbank which shows when you try to book
a large event into the big hotels near the hauptbahnhof.
The why have we not met in this large
1 - 100 of 539 matches
Mail list logo
