Re: [86all] Caribe Overbooking

Ray, (moving this to IETF list because it raises issues more general that one screwup with one hotel. Below... --On Monday, 11 March, 2013 08:49 -0400 Ray Pelletier wrote: > All > > Hotels overbook. It's an unfortunate fact of the industry. For the same reason that tolerating a certain amo

Re: The TSV discussion and its spinoffs

--On Saturday, March 09, 2013 10:31 -0500 Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin writes: > John> confidential or not) or getting into public > discussions about John> qualifications for a position > while that position is un

The TSV discussion and its spinoffs (was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

--On Friday, March 08, 2013 18:57 -0500 Jari Arkko wrote: > FWIW, I do believe that noncoms may decide for themselves what > the final requirements are for specific positions. This is > true in this case as well. The IESG has a role to send the > starting point for these requirements, the desir

Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 09:35 -0800 Dave Crocker wrote: >... > It has always been an election process. Nomcom does the > voting. > > Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their > Nomcom interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most > appealing light. They've de

RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray wrote: >... > So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an > IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with > the masses, baby kissing, etc. >... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is t

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

--On Sunday, March 03, 2013 12:50 + "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > The likely possibility is that many qualified people failed to > get sufficient employer support to be able to volunteer. It's > at least a 50% time commitment. Yes. And with emphasis on "at least". See below. --On Sunday, Marc

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-barnes-healthy-food-06.txt

--On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 09:09 -0600 Mary Barnes wrote: >> [WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be >> appropriate - having this draft explicitly recommend use of a >> wiki or other semi-permanent method to store and share >> information collaboratively about specific locations

Re: Showing support during IETF LC...

--On Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:04 + Brian E Carpenter wrote: >... > By the same token, it seems that a reasoned message saying > why something is important and valuable would help the IESG, > if the document is on a somewhat obscure topic. However, as > John Leslie pointed out, that is

Re: [IAOC] Sunday IAOC Overview Session

--On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 07:44 -0500 Ray Pelletier wrote: >> The last RFC Editor contracts are from 2008. The last >> Secretariat contract is from 2006. All contracts except for >> the ones with ICANN are never published even though that one >> of the agreements mention that the cont

Re: back by popular demand - a DNS calculator

--On Friday, February 15, 2013 16:48 -0800 Joe Touch wrote: > If any label were allowed, then why does IDN conversion go so > far out of its way to exclude particular strings, e.g., those > beginning/ending with '-' and encodes everything 0..7F into > a-z/0-9? > > (I was focused on looking up

Re: back by popular demand - a DNS calculator

--On Friday, February 15, 2013 14:10 -0800 Joe Touch wrote: > Let's just say that there doesn't appear to be disagreement > that the DNS can handle a-z/0-9/'-'. > > Other values _may or may not_ be permitted or handled opaquely > in the lookup, AFAICT. It remains a question AFAICT. Joe, Exce

Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

--On Friday, February 08, 2013 18:42 -0900 Melinda Shore wrote: > On 2/8/13 6:36 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> I try to include in the Acknowledgements section of any >> Internet Drafts I edit the names of anyone who comments on >> the draft if (1) the comment results in a change in the draft >

Re: History of protocol discussion or process in WG

--On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:38 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: >> So don't try. > > +1. In fact in the ITU context they will sometimes spend half > a day on a meeting report. I really don't think we want to go > there. > > > What I would like not to have happen is that we spend any time > b

Re: When is a 3933 experiment necessary? [Was: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC]

--On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 09:15 + Adrian Farrel wrote: >... > So, my conclusion: it would be good to have more process > experiments if people feel the process needs to change. > However, it would appear that such experiments need: > - Thorough debate on an appropriate mailing list f

Re: Reducing time to publication: was Re: FW: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way toRFCwith Running Code) to Experimental RFC

--On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:04 + "t.p." wrote: > Time to publication of an RFC can be reduced by cutting out > the pauses, which could achieved by highlighting when they > occur. > > This can be done by a tool which, for every active Working > Group, runs monthly and, for every draf

Re: FW: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

--On Friday, January 25, 2013 15:34 + Stephen Farrell wrote: >... >> All of this points out one of my main concerns. Almost as a >> side-effect, the proposal formalizes a number of informal >> procedures and mechanisms work pretty well most of the time >> but, because they are informal, ca

Re: FW: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

--On Friday, January 25, 2013 16:31 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: > John, > > On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >>>> a WG can >>>> skip WG LC if they think its not needed. >>> ??? >>> >>> When was the last time that happened?

Re: FW: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

--On Friday, January 25, 2013 14:36 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: > > On 1/22/13 10:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >> a WG can >> skip WG LC if they think its not needed. > > ??? > > When was the last time that happened? Did it require a > consensus call to determine? Chair discretion. It is seems

Re: FW: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

--On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 16:31 -0500 Thomas Narten wrote: > FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't > really change my mind. > > This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the > trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't believe the > draft will ma

Re: Vestigial Features (was Re: CRLF (was: Re: A modest proposal))

--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 23:29 +0100 Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Jan 23, 2013, at 20:56, John C Klensin > wrote: > >> But having CR as an unambiguous "return to first >> character position on line" was important for overstriking >> (especiall

Re: CRLF (was: Re: A modest proposal)

--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 18:05 -0500 John Day wrote: > Then what am I mis-remembering? ;-) Was it that Multics > didn't use CRLF and only NL? I remember this as quite a point > of discussion when we were defining Telnet and FTP. > >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, John Day wrote: >> >>> > >

Re: [IETF] A modest proposal

--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 13:45 -0500 Warren Kumari wrote: >... > Yup, and Unix users have the ability to choose line endings: > Emacs - > M-x set-buffer-file-coding-system RET undecided-dos >... Not exactly. Depending on the particular version/ implementation, most version of Emacs (w

CRLF (was: Re: A modest proposal)

--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 06:15 + John Levine wrote: >>> Additionally, I can't understand why each line is terminated >>> with , why use two characters when one will do. >> >> Microsoft-OS text editors. Seriously. > > My, what a bunch of parvenus. SIP got it from SMTP, SMTP got >

Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers

--On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 08:02 + Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I'm not sure that's not a good thing. Witness for example the >> work SIP Forum has done with the SIPConnect standards, which >> have made it MUCH easier to order a box that will work with a >> SIP Trunking service. > > I t

Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers

--On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 00:19 -0600 Dean Willis wrote: > On Jan 5, 2013, at 10:03 AM, John C Klensin > wrote: > >> And, again, that is further complicated by the observation >> that IETF Standards are used for procurement and even for >> litigation about p

Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

--On Saturday, January 12, 2013 16:19 -0800 David Conrad wrote: > John, > > On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:21 PM, John C Klensin > wrote: >> However, I don't think the >> section of 2860 that you cite helps very much because there is >> another way to read it.

Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-rfc2050-historic-00.txt

--On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:36 -0800 David Conrad wrote: >... > No, since addressing is _explicitly_ declared out of scope of > that MoU, see section 4.3 of RFC 2860: > > "Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in > additionto the technical considerations specified b

Re: travel guide for the next IETF...

--On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 02:56 + John Levine wrote: > Oh, if you were considering a visit to one of the nearby theme > parks, check out their latest hi-tech innovation: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/business/media/at-disney-par > ks-a-bracelet-meant-to-build-loyalty-and-sales

Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers

--On Saturday, January 05, 2013 10:13 +0100 Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > The problem here is that I want them to pay back some of the > money (or take back the equipment totally and give back all > money) for breach of contract, when I discover that they > haven't correctly (as in intention and

Re: Acoustic couplers

--On Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:10 -0500 Steve Crocker wrote: > In 1974 I moved into a condo complex in Marina del Rey near > USC-ISI. As has been my usual practice, I ordered two POTS > lines and I went to the phone company to get the phones. The > condo was pre-wired with jacks in each o

Re: Acoustic couplers

--On Thursday, January 03, 2013 06:52 -0800 Dave Crocker wrote: >... >> A line mod was probably against the rules irrespective of >> Carterphone in those >> days. But had you bought your own phone with a ringer switch >> and hooked that > > Not allowed at that point. All user equipment that w

Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?)

--On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 13:34 -0800 ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> > From: John Day > >> > I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' >> > because connecting it directly to the phone line was >> > illegal. No, there was nothing illegal about it. The

Re: travel guide for the next IETF...

--On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 21:19 + "Livingood, Jason" wrote: > Things like this? > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Florida_All > igator.jpg > > ;-) No, we expect those at the plenary as a special prize for boring presentations :-) john

Re: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt

--On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:45 -0500 Randy Bush wrote: > i remain confused. i am not being pedantic just to be a pita. > i really worry that this document will be used to justtify > strange brokenness. > > from my 2012.11.29 message: >... >> e.g. 192.0.0.0/24 is neither routable nor glo

Re: Last Call: (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard

--On Sunday, December 16, 2012 18:12 -0500 Barry Leiba wrote: > Anyone have any comments on what I suggested below? How about "+1" --complete agreement. The terminology, if interpreted in a "normal English" context, lies somewhere between confusing and misleading and a precise local definition

Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts

--On Sunday, December 16, 2012 15:08 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > to this I'd add > > (5) Widespread, examined belief that the specification has > minimal impact on the Internet architecture. > > I keep seeing IETF standardize protocols that seem likely to > have seriously damaging architectura

Re: Running code, take 2

--On Saturday, December 15, 2012 18:03 +0200 Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Hi John, > > According to Google, exactly one such report was issued: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-06 > (the published RFC omitted the results of the experiment, > somehow). And this particular exp

Re: Running code, take 2

--On Friday, December 14, 2012 10:49 +0200 Yaron Sheffer wrote: >... > The value in a 3933 experiment is in the Summary Report, > otherwise I agree it's a waste of time. At the end of the > period we will have a little bit of data to understand whether > we have traction for this idea, and whe

The notion of "fast tracking" drafts (was: Re: Running code, take 2)

Hi. I've been trying to say out of this because I think most of the suggestions are better carried out by AD-encouraged experiments and reports to the rest of us on effectiveness rather than by long discussions in the community about details and the costs of an unnecessary consensus process. How

Re: Running code, take 2

--On Thursday, December 13, 2012 16:11 -0800 Randy Bush wrote: >> My concern remains that we not create new formal procedures >> to do (or even experiment with) things that can be done under >> existing rules either for the whole IETF or on an area by >> area or even document by document basis

Re: Running code, take 2

--On Thursday, December 13, 2012 23:51 +0200 Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Hi Randy, > > the RPKI report is very impressive and probably very useful. > But: > > - Other areas (e.g. the Security Area, where I'm coming form) > may not have this tradition. If it is important, nothing prevents establis

Re: A mailing list protocol

--On Sunday, December 09, 2012 11:40 -0900 Melinda Shore wrote: > On 12/9/12 10:43 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> I would like to ask you to pick the three points from Section >> 2 ( >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-mail-list-protocol >> -00 ) which you consider as helpful to facilitate

Re: English spoken here

--On Wednesday, December 05, 2012 08:45 -0500 Steven Bellovin wrote: >> I used to see that also, but I don't recall seeing anyone do >> that in Atlanta. Maybe people just download the slides now? >> > That's my assumption -- the infrastructure and policies are > better set up now for that sor

Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

--On Monday, December 03, 2012 11:28 + Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy >> specifications is a Bad Thing. > > Sure. I guess I'd hope that we push back on sloppy specs as > usual, but that the running code might make that less likely, > o

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:19 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: > There is another unfortunate community habit that I have > noticed. > It is, I believe, a consequence o their being simply too much > stuff to look at. Of course, having too much stuff to look at is ultimately a consequence

Re: English spoken here (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)

--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 08:35 -0800 SM wrote: > > It is not about different dialects of English. There are > people in one part of the world who speak English. There are > people from other parts of the world which do not understand > that English because of: > > (a) The way Englis

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 09:53 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: >... > (Another way to put is that even if we provide such cameras in > meetings along with colored pens and paper, we will continue > to see PowerPoint being used as it is today unless there's a > community-wide effort to change our

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 08:40 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > I have no objection to using PPT to display diagrams or lists > of open issues. And I understand that PPT can be of aid to > those (including me) who have trouble with understanding the > diverse ways that English is spoken. > >

Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default

--On Friday, 30 November, 2012 16:11 +0100 Loa Andersson wrote: > John, > > I took this request as request to change the default, given > that the > tool-version is what I use (mostly) that change would be > beneficial, > but I'd be reluctant to see the HTML-version go away > immediately. I t

Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default

--On Thursday, 29 November, 2012 10:11 -0800 Wes Hardaker wrote: > > So, the 'tools version' with all the wonderful spiffy links to > helpful things (the materials, the etherpad, the ...) and the > spiffy highlighting ability (Dark Red! I love dark red!) has > been very stable and highly usef

Re: Barely literate minutes

--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 16:11 -0500 Scott Brim wrote: > On 11/28/12 15:53, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: >> Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time, >> the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to >> b

Re: Barely literate minutes (was: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 03:28 -0800 SM wrote: > At 01:25 28-11-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >> This is, IMO, a consequence of our developing fancy tools and >> then uncritically relying on them. A Jabber log or real-time >> Etherpad may be, and probably is, a ver

Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 08:15 + Brian E Carpenter wrote: >... > The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue > sheets, but the barely literate "he said, she said" minutes > from most WGs are pretty much useless. For people attempting > to participate only via the

Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba wrote: >... > So here's my question: > Does the community want us to push back on those situations? > Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on > the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to > the extent

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

--On Wednesday, 07 November, 2012 12:10 + Brian E Carpenter wrote: >... > My experience is that, when the disclosure is made by a > corporate IPR department on behalf of the actual contributor, > there can be at least a couple of months delay. If a draft is > at an early stage in the IETF p

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

--On Wednesday, 07 November, 2012 10:23 +0900 Randy Bush wrote: > [ my last post on this ] > >> But my objective in the question what might be "late" was >> whether IETF may have defined "late" somewhere > > we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. > discussion of how far the sub

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

Russ, Thanks very much for the clarification. Olafur, Go ahead and add me to the signature list. I am Nomcom-eligible. john --On Saturday, 03 November, 2012 11:36 -0400 Russ Housley wrote: > John: > >>> I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the >>> recall option? If not,

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

--On Thursday, 01 November, 2012 22:22 -0400 Michael StJohns wrote: > I assume at this point the IAOC would like to pursue the > recall option? If not, please be very clear about it to the > list as I haven't actually seen a request from the IAOC for > that process to proceed as far as I can t

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

--On Sunday, October 28, 2012 13:31 -0400 Eric Burger wrote: > If someone falls off the face of the Earth, and repeated > attempts to contact them using legally recognized methods of > notice fails, and more importantly they have a positive track > record that spans over a decade, we can use ou

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

--On Monday, October 29, 2012 14:06 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: > Bob, everyone, > > As I've mentioned, I'd prefer an alternative to what the > authors have written. Call this the "let's program ourselves > out of a paper bag" option, when we all agree. This may be a > rule we would wish to gene

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

--On Friday, October 26, 2012 12:25 -0400 Michael StJohns wrote: >... > I'm pretty much going to object to any condition based model > that anyone proposes, because we're really bad at a) figuring > out the complete list of all possible conditions that could > ever happen, b) writing conditions

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

--On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:11 -0400 Michael StJohns wrote: >... >> On 10/26/12 4:29 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> I'm using "expulsion" here the way its used in the US >>> political system - a legislative body may choose to expel >>> one of its members for various reasons. I propose tha

Re: Hasty procedural changes (was: Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies])

--On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:24 -0400 John Leslie wrote: >... >> I really, strongly, object to this way of proceeding. Making >> fundamental procedural changes in haste and in the middle of a >> perceived crisis is never a good idea for any organization. > >I don't agree this is a "f

Hasty procedural changes (was: Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies])

--On Thapparently-strongly-held ursday, October 25, 2012 09:23 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: > Bob, Russ... repeating here what I said in the other thread, I > suggest that... > > - the authors of draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd post an -01 > version TODAY, incorporating comments received so far, > >

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-arch...@w3.org from September 2012)

--On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:39 +0100 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 23/10/2012 00:32, Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... >> The underlying point that people seem to be making is that >> there's legitimate need for URIs to be a separate concept >> from "strings that will become URIs." By col

RE: In Memoriam IETF web page

--On Sunday, October 21, 2012 17:43 +0100 Adrian Farrel wrote: > In practice, that will mean, anyone who someone else thinks > was a part of the community. > > It would not be seemly to squabble about whether someone had > really played a significant part in the IETF, and would be > better to

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

--On Thursday, October 18, 2012 07:13 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crocker > wrote: >>> I see no way to explain the narrow EAI use case in this >>> context without either dragging in a whole bunch of EAI that >>> has no business being here or leaving various

Re: Antitrust FAQ

--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:06 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: > If a spec has broad support, it doesn't matter where it came > from. If a spec does not have broad support, it doesn't > matter where it came from. > > The essential concern is reviewing initial and continuing > support. It's

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:26 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: >... A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a long way towards showing how this update helps in practical ways. >>> >>> I could

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:00 -0700 ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with >> the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a >> long way towards showing how this update helps in practical >> ways. > > I could live

Re: Antitrust FAQ

Hi. A separate conversation stirred up memories of the ones at ANSI from long ago and suggests something else that should be added to the list: * A protocol specification that has the appearance of being solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is inherently dangerous and dange

Re: Antitrust FAQ

--On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:14 -0500 Pete Resnick wrote: > My concern (along with many other folks) > only kicks in when the collection of this information starts > to look like a formal antitrust *policy*. I'm afraid that > having an antitrust policy starts to lead us down the path of >

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

--On Friday, October 05, 2012 10:29 +0200 João Damas wrote: >... >> IMO, this discussion has turned up two ways in which the case >> for eliminating the possibility of additional label types >> could be made: >> >> (2.1) Demonstrating that simply having the capability defined >> and available

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

--On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 23:39 -0700 SM wrote: > From Section 7 of the draft: > > "Responders which choose not to implement the protocol > extensions >defined in this document MUST respond with a return code > (RCODE) of >FORMERR to messages containing an OPT RR in the addition

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

--On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:43 +0200 João Damas wrote: > I believe you are saying the same things when you are both > saying that for this to work there may be more than one way to > do it but all options require completely new functionality in > implementations (either by implementing

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

--On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 13:32 +1000 Mark Andrews wrote: > Closing the registry is not irreversable if it needs to be > reversed. It's not like we can forget that there were assigned > code points and anything that attempted to use those code > points would have to consider the fact that

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

--On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:22 +1000 Mark Andrews wrote: >> Therefore: >> (1) Did the WG consider i18n and other issues and >> possibilities before deciding to deprecate extended label >> types entirely? If so, why aren't those considerations >> described in the document? We don't have

Re: Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

--On Sunday, September 30, 2012 07:53 -0700 The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG > (dnsext) to consider the following document: > - 'Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))' >as Internet > Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I > would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but > also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to > convince an IETF WG. It is important t

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-arch...@w3.org from September 2012)

--On Monday, September 24, 2012 22:51 +0100 Brian E Carpenter wrote: >... > Some of the "violations" are "motivated by a desire to handle > legacy content". That seems to be in the IETF spirit of "Be > strict when sending and tolerant when receiving" for the sake > of backwards compatibility. A

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Saturday, September 22, 2012 09:33 -0500 Pete Resnick wrote: >... >>> An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with >>> consensus of the IESG. There are two situations when the >>> IESG will take this action. First, to comply with a duly >>> authorized court order. Second

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-07

--On Thursday, September 20, 2012 15:03 -0500 Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi, > > Email discussion about the simple downgrade draft made me > think of a concern that I think I failed to mention in my > review. In particular, the "tunneling" mechanism allows the > creation of several new "Downgraded-

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

Joe, While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are getting a little over the top. Specifically... --On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch

Re: Obsoletes/Updates in the abstract (Was: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-07)

--On Friday, September 21, 2012 15:25 -0500 Ben Campbell wrote: >> It's certainly useful to some folks. Necessary? (*Shrug*) Not >> enough wasted bits for me to care one way or the other. >> > > As a Gen-ART reviewer, I called it out for exactly the reasons > Pete mentions, and care about the

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 23:38 +0200 Carsten Bormann wrote: >... > Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or > one can be reasonably expected), the legal angle is simply > irrelevant. > > (Just keeping the thread alive so it doesn't seem that > everybody agrees wi

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-09

Following up on my earlier note about a comment from you that really applies to the strategy on which all four documents are really based... --On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 20:44 -0500 Ben Campbell wrote: >... > Along the same lines, section 7 seems to go to lengths to > illustrate why downgrad

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-07

--On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 21:24 -0500 Ben Campbell wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For > background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > . > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 23:59 + John Levine wrote: > Censorship? Sheesh. >... > As I think I've said several times before, if we think the > IESG would start gratuitously deleting stuff, we have much > worse problems than any policy statement could solve. +1 Exactly. The jump

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 15:10 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the > public I-D archive. >>> >>> This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written >>> policy guidance. That is,

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 00:19 -0700 Joe Touch wrote: > On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >>> But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires >>> that _keep_ imply "gua

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 23:13 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: >... > There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired > document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that > it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and > the text you cite later goes o

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Monday, September 10, 2012 15:07 -0400 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:29AM -0700, > ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: > >> > No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an >> > open organization we do not remove information once posted, >> > except und

Re: [EAI] Last Call: (Post-delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages) to Proposed Standard

--On Sunday, September 09, 2012 21:58 + Franck Martin wrote: > I'm happier, > > Made comments in another thread on why I believe it opens a > security hole wider rather than trying to close it. > > I guess I could leave with it, when this downgrade is only > done from a SMTPUTF8 compatibl

Re: [EAI] Last Call: (Post-delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages) to Proposed Standard

--On Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:52 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: >> I think 5322upd-from-group needs to apply to both >> backward-pointing address types to be effective for what >> popimap-downgrade needs. > > I will make the change. I'll also remind the EAI group that > there have been a coupl

Re: [EAI] Last Call: (Post-delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages) to Proposed Standard

--On Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:33 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: >... > Rats; I missed this in earlier review: > > -- Section 3.2.1 -- > >This procedure may generate empty elements in > "From:","Sender:" and "Reply-To:" header fields. >[I-D.leiba-5322upd-from-group] updates [RFC532

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Friday, September 07, 2012 15:54 +0900 Randy Bush wrote: >>> An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in >>> compliance with a competent legal demand. >> This leaves sufficient flexibility for the IESG to decide >> when a legal demand requires the removal and when it's bogus > >

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Friday, September 07, 2012 10:33 +0100 Stewart Bryant wrote: > On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote: >> An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in >> compliance >> > with a duly authorized court order. > Would > > "An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive i

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:32 -0700 Ted Hardie wrote: > For third party requests to remove others' independent > submissions, I think there should be a pretty high bar. "Open > submission" is a key part of "open standards", in my opinion, > and if it becomes overly easy to cause sub

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:02 -0700 SM wrote: > At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> That's an interesting but not very informative statement. > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html Of course, there is a case to be made that, if we had a mor

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 08:05 -0700 Ted Hardie wrote: > I support the idea that there be mechanisms for removal of IDs > from both that don't require a court order, but I don't think > it should be too simple. I'd suggest: > > a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF s

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >