Re: Second Last Call: (Sieve Not ifica tion Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

ught to be less problematic from Huawei's standpoint than potentially having the patent (and potentially related ones) invalidated or rendered unenforceable -- an action that would be completely outside our control. > On one point, however, I'm aligned: > > On 01/26/2012 10:31 AM,

Re: Second Last Call: (Sieve Notifica tion Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

--On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 17:06 -0600 Pete Resnick wrote: >... > Before posting this Last Call (and the similar one for > draft-ietf-sieve-convert), the documents *were* returned to > the SIEVE WG to review the situation. With minimal complaint > from the WG and no indication that the WG

Re: Story: "Next battle over Net ramps up worldwide"

--On Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:04 -0500 Noel Chiappa wrote: > For those who haven't seen it, here: > > Next battle over Net ramps up worldwide > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71625.html > > is an interesting story, one which is also fairly accurate > (often not true of maj

Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP

--On Saturday, January 14, 2012 14:32 +0100 Alessandro Vesely wrote: >... >> A bit later, a liaison statement was sent from OMA to IETF, >> seeking collaboration and a "home" for the draft; as >> required by RFC3975. > > I assume you're still talking about SREP. I read a reply by > John Klens

Re: Protocol Definition

--On Thursday, January 05, 2012 06:48 -0800 Dave CROCKER wrote: > (One can quibble about the difference between algorithm and > program. An algorithm is a component of a program. The > distinction is relevant here because a protocol is typically a > complete mechanism rather than being a comp

Re: Last Call: (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

--On Monday, January 02, 2012 09:36 +0200 Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >... >> I believe that the IESG ought to take exceptional care with >> individual submissions, precisely because they are published >> in the IETF stream, requiring significant expertise or careful >> reading to determine wheth

Re: primary Paris hotel booking

--On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 15:54 -0500 Eric Burger wrote: > Actually (s), the IETF *does* get credit for rooms sold. > We reconcile the attendee list with hotel guests. Go for it. In a way, that is really too bad. If people find the cancellation or other) policies problematic enough t

Re: primary Paris hotel booking

--On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 13:57 -0500 Thomas Nadeau wrote: >... > I agree. In addition to that the pre-pay situation can be a > major PITA for expensing purposes. We should add "normal" > booking procedures to the hotel requirements list as well. It is a little worse than "merely"

Re: Last Call: (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

--On Sunday, January 01, 2012 19:55 +0100 Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > Among the goals of the Internet Standards Process are > "openness" and "fairness" and I would find these principles > grossly violated if the IESG would approve the document for > publication with the proposed changes applied b

Re: Last Call: (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

Hi. While I'm highly sympathetic to Thomas Roessler's position which I interpret as this needing (as a matter of courtesy and cooperation, if nothing else) affirmative signoff from the relevant parties in W3C, I would settle for any clear set of comments from them. But I think this also needs som

Re: Last Call: (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

FWIW, I strongly support Thomas's position. This should either be a narrow description of existing practice or should not be approved by the IETF without review and buy-in from the communities who actually use and support this mechanism. john --On Sunday, January 01, 2012 18:06 +0100 Tho

Re: Last Call: (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

--On Sunday, December 11, 2011 15:13 +0100 Julian Reschke wrote: > I think it would have been wise if the author actually had > sent a review request to the link relation mailing list, first > (see ). Julian, Rather than seeing more of these p

Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected

--On Thursday, December 08, 2011 14:02 -0500 Thomas Narten wrote: > As background, the actual errata is at > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226&eid=2715 >... > I don't see the need for this. "should" seems good enough for > me. Also, the wording "any ranges that are ... etc."

Re: Travel/Attendees list FAQ

--On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:41 -0800 Bob Hinden wrote: >... > Also, if it gets published as an RFC, it is going to be viewed > as a "specification". I think it's best to avoid that and > just have a wiki.I would be surprised if this topic > continues to be as active area of discus

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad wrote: > Bob, > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing >> to do this could make sure that their customers CPE can >> support class E addresses, upgrade the CPE fir

Re: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

--On Monday, December 05, 2011 09:36 -0600 Pete Resnick wrote: > On 12/4/11 12:33 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >> 3) Use RFC-1918 address space. That would work for pure >> "consumer" applications, but would break things like remote >> employees using VPNs. I don't think that's a result we >> sh

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

--On Monday, December 05, 2011 09:59 +0100 Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Consensus Call: > draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Mon, Dec 05, > 2011 at 12:28:56AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin > (john-i...@jck.com): > > (John, this is more of a general

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

--On Sunday, December 04, 2011 20:40 -0600 Pete Resnick wrote: >... > Nope, but your close. The assumption in my question is that if > the legacy (broken?) gear in question all uses 10/8 *and* we > publish a document that declares a particular (presently > unused by said gear) block of 1918 add

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

--On Saturday, December 03, 2011 08:43 +1300 Brian E Carpenter wrote: >... > We should ask a specific concrete question to a litigator who > understands antitrust law: are there any significant gaps in > the IETF process rules, including the formal Note Well warning > given to all participants,

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

--On Friday, December 02, 2011 10:06 -0800 Ted Hardie wrote: >... >> In that context, questions like Pete's make perfect sense >> because they are questions about how to patch around said >> legacy gear while causing minimum damage to today's >> assumptions about, e.g., routable and non-routabl

RE: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

--On Friday, December 02, 2011 04:17 -0800 John E Drake wrote: > Huub, > > In your email, below, you state: > > "This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be > considered to be a MPLS protocol and therefore should not > subject to the provisions of RFC 4929." >... > Doesn't t

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

Ted, I've been trying to stay out of this round of this debate too, but... --On Thursday, December 01, 2011 22:07 -0800 Ted Hardie wrote: >... > An enterprise that has numbered into this space and gets put > behind a CGN by a provider will have no direct control over > this equipment, and it mi

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

--On Monday, November 28, 2011 21:42 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> One small suggestion, partially prompted by my attempts to >> convert PDF and Postscript RFCs to PDF/A: when the converter >> cannot or does not succeed in producing valid PDF/A, could >> that fact be logged in some accessibl

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

--On Monday, November 28, 2011 14:10 -0500 IETF Chair wrote: > Ted: > >> The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the >> IETF ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this >> need, a lawyer is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that >> IASA pay a lawyer to come up with a

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

--On Monday, November 28, 2011 19:20 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >... > I've set the converter ('unoconv', which uses libreoffice) up > to convert to PDF/A, but the converter doesn't always fully > succeed in producing valid PDF/A (also mentioned by Robinson > in one of his posts) -- the resu

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

--On Monday, November 28, 2011 18:27 +0100 Julian Reschke wrote: >> That's more of an attribute of the text reader than any thing >> else. I've had readers that reflow text just fine --- far >> better than PDF, at any rate. > > It requires a format that does allow reflowing and > repagination.

RE: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx

--On Monday, November 28, 2011 02:45 -0800 Ole Jacobsen wrote: > We, the RSOC, think this might be a good, simple first task > for the new RFC Series Editor ;-) Especially given that, while we left omniscience off the public requirements list, we expect any RSE appointee to demonstrate it :-)

Re: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]

--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 11:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > On 11/27/2011 10:36 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >> >> >> --On Sunday, November 27, 2011 08:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin >> wrote: >> >>> The problem here is that RFC and Inte

Re: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]

--On Sunday, November 27, 2011 08:20 -0800 Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not plain > ASCII. They are technically in a special format that I would > call "line-printer ready text file", and ASCII is the > encoding, not the format. What is ne

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

--On Saturday, November 26, 2011 19:23 + John Levine wrote: >> FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning >> proprietary formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_ >> proprietary formats, not just picking and choosing among >> proprietary formats that are, e.g., more recent or

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

--On Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:11 +0100 "t.petch" wrote: > > Could we also say 'No' to .docx, another incomprehensible > format designed to persuade us to take time out, spend money > and upgrade all and sundry? > > I notice some ADs/WG chairs using this and while it gets > converted to

Re: NomCom 2011-2012 feedback

--On Sunday, October 30, 2011 23:01 -0400 Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> I noticed that the term "transparency of the process" only >> appears in two of the three questionnaires. Is there a >> reason for the omission? > > The omission is intentional. The text in question > ("transparency of the p

Re: From Pandoc To RFC

Olaf, It would be really nice to have a web page somewhere that listed these tools and provided links to them, regardless of whether they are supported or not. The old Tools "RFC authoring" page, http://tools.ietf.org/inventory/author-tools, which used to do that job, now shows "This page is not

Re: [rfc-i] From Pandoc To RFC

--On Saturday, October 29, 2011 14:51 -0400 Russ Housley wrote: > I just think we need a volunteer to take over maintenance of > the existing page. That would be fine (and I noticed that Marshall volunteered, for which I'm grateful), but part of my hope was that we could institutionalize that

Re: The death John McCarthy

--On Friday, October 28, 2011 08:17 -0700 ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >... > And frankly, if there's disrespect to be found here, IMO it > lies in using this > sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people > apparently don't like. Sorry, Ned. I can't speak for others, but

Re: TICC restrictions on food/beverage

--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 22:06 -0500 Pete Resnick wrote: > It didn't take long to find this on the TICC website: > > http://www.ticc.com.tw/content/Download/DownloadFile.aspx?id=1 > 02 > > It is a PDF with a creation date of Sep. 27, 2005 containing > the "Convention & Exhibition Manua

Re: The death John McCarthy

--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 19:56 -0400 Hector wrote: >... > People should be aware of the such obvious conflict in > acronyms, at least do a quick research for existence names. I > guess its a "younger" generation issue. Not a generational issue but a deliberate effort to be cute. The pro

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

--On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:17 -0400 Donald Eastlake wrote: > Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of > going back to 4 meetings a year than going to 2... That is why I didn't suggest "going to 2" but dropping the f2f count to two _and_ insisting that WGs hold interi

Re: The death John McCarthy

--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: >... > I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group > rename what it currently calls "LISP" to something else. To > put it politely, the IETF should be standing on the shoulders > of the giants who have laid the ground

TICC restrictions on food/beverage

--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:24 -0500 Mary Barnes wrote: >> No food or beverages are allowed to be brought into the >> meeting rooms and working group sessions unless >> specifically served by the IETF. > [MB] In my opinion, everyone should be sharing their views > about this. I'm

Nomcom (was: Re: Requirement to go to meetings)

Subject changed, this is about to go off in a different direction. --On Thursday, October 27, 2011 08:38 -0500 Mary Barnes wrote: >... > [MB] No, I do not think the comments should be public. My > point was that there is such a small percentage of the > community that even provides input that i

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

--On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: > >> the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier >> and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) > > I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a > number of prob

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:11 +0100 Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> Remember, in UTF-8, characters can be multiple octets. So 998 >> UTF-8 encoded *characters* are likely to be many more than >> 998 octets long. So the change is to say that the limit is in >> octets, not in characters. > > >

RE: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input)

--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >... > Tough call. I completely understand the need and desire to be > productive without requiring meetings, for all the financial, > participation, and other reasons given. But I also am very > familiar with the fact tha

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:06 + Eric Burger wrote: > For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel > from: Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 = > $3,600 to: > Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000 > > HOWEVER, if I lived in

Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)

--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 15:21 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > One thing to consider is charging for this service > > I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get > better remote participation capability when I am unable to > travel to the location chosen. > > I wo

Re: [IAOC] Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)

--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:50 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: > John, > > The RFP is not a solicitation to vendors of remote > participation services. It is to hire someone to write a > requirements document for remote participation services. It > is not to develop any code nor are the items l

Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input

--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 17:15 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> I recommend that the RFP be withdrawn until modifications such >> as those suggested above can be discussed by the IAOC and >> further input on draft RFP provisions sought from the >> community. > > -1. > > Or I disagree co

Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)

--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:49 +0200 Frank Ellermann wrote: > +1 > > Two "it's only me" observations: What some mobile > broadband providers euphemistically sell as "ISDN"- > speed in Germany and what Microsoft claims to be a > "media player" is a major PIT* with whatever the > IETF co

Anotherj RFP without IETF community input (was: Re: RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development)

Ray and IAOC, I hate to keep bringing this up, but the discussions leading up to BCP 101 and the oft-replated principle of "maximum amount of transparency to the IETF community that can be reasonably obtained" strongly suggest that documents that are intended to evolve into RFPs be circulated in d

Re: Last Call (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

+1 john --On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 06:11 +0200 Patrik Fältström wrote: > > On 11 okt 2011, at 22:53, Ross Callon wrote: > >>> I didn't mean to say that the IETF in general allows >>> multiple solutions but I think it is accurate to say that >>> the IETF has a less than 100% success r

Re: meeting slots

--On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:11 -0700 Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 10/12/2011 10:27 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts. >> However, I thought this might help us avoid some of the >> issues we've had in the past, where obvious group-level

Re: Expiring a publication - especially standards track documents which are abandoned

--On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:03 -0500 Dean Willis wrote: >... > Automatic expiry, as you propose, is easy. But given the fact > that long-lived PS have essentially become "standards", I'd > like to make a counter-proposal -- semi-automatic advancement. > > We set a 3-year life-cycle for P

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

--On Monday, September 26, 2011 13:15 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: > John, > > I don't see how you took what I said and then interpreted it > as suggesting that I was saying proposing an "absolute > dictatorship". You do have a good imagination :-) I didn't take your proposal that way at all. I

Re: Last Call: (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

--On Sunday, September 25, 2011 13:25 -0400 Keith Moore wrote: >> Remembering that an ISP who wants to avoid the use of public >> IPv4 addresses on its backbone/infrastructure has the option >> of simply converting that infrastructure to IPv6, tunneling >> public-address IPv4 packets (both its

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

--On Friday, September 23, 2011 11:04 +0300 Bob Hinden wrote: >> I also claim that for the third item there is no necessity >> for the I* chairs to be a voting member, nor for the fourth. >> That said, I am sensitive to the argument that if I* chairs >> are members they may actually pay more at

Re: Last Call: (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

--On Friday, September 23, 2011 21:20 -0400 Keith Moore wrote: > I already made one Last Call comment, but I neglected to state > unambiguously whether I supported the proposal. > > I do support this proposal. > > I think that this question needs to be viewed as a choice > between two risk

Re: Last Call: (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

--On Friday, September 23, 2011 17:54 -0700 SM wrote: > At 13:40 23-09-2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> What makes you think that the Independent stream would >> publish such an RFC, which on the face of it would be a >> complete end-run around the IETF process, and fly in the face >> of the I

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

--On Thursday, September 22, 2011 00:12 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: >... > Also, there is some experience from the other direction: > sometimes it has happened that the chair talks with the IAOC > and they come up with some conclusion, but when he talks to > the rest of us in an IESG meeting we br

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

responded to most of these in a different subthread earlier this week. The remarks below are just a quick summary. > Original Message > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt > Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:06:07 -0400 > From: Leslie Daigle > To: IET

Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]

--On Monday, September 19, 2011 17:58 -0500 Jorge Contreras wrote: >... > Brian's interpretation is correct. If someone is an IAOC > member, voting or not, then he/she is a Trustee with full > fiduciary duties. To change this, the Trust Agreement would > need to be amended. Once again, the p

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

--On Monday, September 19, 2011 14:26 -0500 Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I >> think it accurately summarizes the focus of this thread, so >> far. >... > I am carefully reading the notes that were posted after I > posted. I noticed that J

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

--On Monday, September 19, 2011 14:04 -0400 Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Dear Spencer; > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins > > wrote: > >> For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of >> the justification for Olaf's proposal. >> >> Anything that the IETF can d

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

--On Monday, September 19, 2011 10:37 +0200 Roger Jørgensen wrote: > Have been alot of discussion and suggestion and problems but > nothing that made me understand why, what is the underlaying > cause. (it could be that I'm just slow, we shouldn't rule that > out :-) ) Roger, The problem is t

Re: Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)

--On Friday, September 16, 2011 01:08 -0400 Keith Moore wrote: >... > Part of the problem is the expectation that some single label > should entirely define the status of a specification. There > are several almost-orthogonal variables that the community > cares about (or should care about):

Re: 2119bis

--On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 08:28 +1200 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > John, > > I don't share your confusion. I do feel that to be able to > construct reasonably pleasant sentences, we need both the verb > SHOULD and the adjectival participle RECOMMENDED, and their > negatives, in various ci

Re: 2119bis

--On Monday, September 12, 2011 09:34 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 8/29/11 3:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> After staring at >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for long >> enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to >> obsolete RFC 2119. I hope

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > >>> --On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley >>> However, if we go straight to a one-level now, and then learn >>> that a two-level would have been better, we w

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley wrote: > I think you will see that this question was discussed at least > once. We asked about moving to a one-level maturity model > instead. The conclusion was that it was possible to go from a > two-level to a one-level in the future

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 14:49 +1200 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2011-09-11 13:26, Eric Burger wrote: >> So should we move to a one-step process? > > There is a detailed proposal for that at > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-a > ll-01.txt > > I don't thin

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Eric, Thomas may well have a different answer but, speaking personally, if we have a choice between a nominal three-step process that is actually one-step with a few exceptions and a nominal two-step process that is actually one-step with a few exceptions, I think we would be much better off with

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

--On Saturday, September 10, 2011 16:11 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote: > I do not think the following types of comments should be > considered as objections when judging this sort of consensus: > > 1) You are not solving the most important problem Sure. As long as we differentiate between than and

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-06

--On Friday, September 09, 2011 18:02 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: > There seem to be at least two different dimensions here, > probably more. > On the one hand, when I discuss with someone (in an airport, > hotel, whatever) an idea for a protocol behavior, that does > not consistute permissi

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-06

--On Friday, September 09, 2011 10:07 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: >> but I guess I'm looking for a way that someone could >> explicitly choose to have a meeting where Note Well did not >> apply. > > I agree, and I hope my suggested text says that. If more > needs to be said, we (for some value o

RE: [IETF] RE: possibly entertaining statistics

--On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 20:29 -0400 Scott Brim wrote: > On Sep 7, 2011 6:50 PM, "Thomson, Martin" > wrote: >> >... >> The following working group names are still open: bistro, >> ibis, ... >> >> Sadly, this hasn't worked for httpbis and urnbis doesn't look >> good. > > On a serio

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

While I disagree with the "WG Draft" part, partially because I think we do still derive significant value from cross-area review, I agree with the rest of this. FWIW, I am actually quite sympathetic to Ned's argument that the presence of two levels past proposed and the amount of nonsense that see

Re: 2119bis

--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 23:10 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Eric" == Eric Burger writes: > > Eric> This highlights an interesting issue as an RFC goes > from PS to Eric> IS. I would offer that most SHOULDs in a > document will, if Eric> there are real implementations ou

RE: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

--On Friday, September 02, 2011 14:36 -0700 Ned Freed wrote: >... > Well, that's the real problem, isn't it? Even if you believe > this is a distraction and even actively harmful, it's not like > we've been able to move past it either. The "running code" > result here seems pretty clear, and it

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 23:17 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: > I have reviewed the discussion from the last call on this > document. > > My conclusion as the sponsoring AD is that we have consensus > to move forward. There was clearly a constituency who believed > this is a good (albeit small)

Re: Last Call: (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

--On Thursday, September 01, 2011 08:10 -0700 Dave CROCKER wrote: >... > Folks should remember that this is a system that has been > functioning quite well for some decades and I am not aware of > any recent emergencies that justify starting over or making > major changes. > > The policy when

Re: Pachyderm in the parlor (Was: 2119bis)

--On Thursday, September 01, 2011 08:10 -0700 Pete Resnick wrote: >... > Peter's document makes a change to 2119 that nobody has > mentioned yet, and I think it is the one that is causing most > of the strife in this discussion. > > Hector is exactly right. SHOULDs are optional. MAYs are > opt

Re: Last Call: (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

Hi. The recent discussion about DISCUSS and DS/IS documents has inspired me to go back and think about the "two maturity levels" draft again. Sadly, it hasn't changed my mind but has, in some respects, reinforced and strengthened my earlier view that this is not a good idea and is not harmless.

Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:47 -0400 Keith Moore wrote: >... >> IMO, there are two possibilities here. At this point, sadly, >> both involve a chicken-and-egg problem. Such is life. >> >> (1) We proceed as if Proposed Standards are what 2026 (and the >> earlier culture) claims they are

Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:08 -0400 Keith Moore wrote: > On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:42 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> We ought to, IMO, be permitting >> publication of PS documents at the second level as long as >> there are no _obvious_ ambiguities that cannot be

Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 08:02 -0400 Keith Moore wrote: >> I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very >> clearly that editorial comments cannot be blocking DISCUSSes. > > So nobody has the job of making sure that the documents are > well-written in clear English? Keith, I

Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:34 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: > Eric, John, > >> Would having professional editors make a difference here? > >>> I know it is controversial, but there is at least one other >... > I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very > clearly that editorial

Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker wrote: >> What's also not fair game is to "raise the bar" - to expect >> the document at DS to meet more stringent criteria than it >> was required to meet at the time of PS approval. > > Hmmm, the "demonstrated interoperability" requirement

Re: 2119bis

--On Monday, August 29, 2011 17:50 -0400 Thomas Narten wrote: > It would help me if you explained the diffs and the *reasons* > for the proposed changes. > >... > The wording "unless there is a strong explicitly described > reason not to do so in particular circumstances" is new > wording and

Re: https

--On Friday, August 26, 2011 16:15 -0400 Eric Burger wrote: > Two thoughts. > > On the one hand, Ned is absolutely correct: the thing we want > to make absolutely sure of is the integrity of the object. The > way of doing that is making sure the object itself can prove > its integrity. In the

Re: https

--On Friday, August 26, 2011 09:43 -0400 Donald Eastlake wrote: >> Yup, but why are we using https at all?  Who decided, and >> please would they undecide?  Unexpired certificates can be >> circumvented, but all too often, the https parts of the web >> site just do not work and, more importantl

Re: voting system for future venues?

--On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 21:56 -0500 Pete Resnick wrote: >... >> Just a reminder, the community VOTED for Quebec City. >> >> Backing up Dave here, the community repeatedly VOTES or, in >> post-meeting surveys, INDICATES (VOTES) for the sort of >> venues we have been booking. > > OK,

Re: Discussing a DISCUSS - down-refs in draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02

--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:02 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote: >> "SM" == SM writes: > > SM> There is currently a DISCUSS for > draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: SM> > > SM> The IETF LC > SM> > (https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=96 > 80&tid=1314107697

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:57 -0400 Thomas Nadeau wrote: >> I obviously don't have all of the information available to me >> that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always >> another alternative. If there are no local ones, that >> alternative is usually described as "just

Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

+1. I could also happily live with the alternate, more compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the schedule used in Quebec and earlier. john --On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear wrote: > > > On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote: >> The IESG is considering

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

--On Monday, August 22, 2011 20:16 -0400 Ray Pelletier wrote: >... > As for the rates, they are high. Taiwan is expensive, > particularly given that the hotels know what our options are > when we book the TICC. The Hyatt knew that foreign visitors > needed to use the Hyatt as headquarters and

Re: IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008

--On Friday, August 19, 2011 20:34 +0200 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote: > IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol > and technology adaptations in different areas. Several mailing > lists are working on such adaptations. There is a need they > know the others' targ

Re: Last Call: (Considerationsfor Having a Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting) to Informational RFC

I think this is a nice document, with many useful suggestions and insights. I think it would make a great ION if we still had IONs, a fine IESG statement, or perhaps an I-D that was reissued every 5 1/2 months to keep it active. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of publishing i

RE: I-D Working groups and mailing list

--On Monday, August 08, 2011 13:34 -0700 ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> > -Original Message- >> > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] >> > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 9:19 AM >> > To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf@ietf.org >> >

Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center

--On Monday, August 08, 2011 11:07 -0700 Joel Jaeggli wrote: > We've heard from the community where minimizing our exposure > to visa is should be in our list of priorities. I know of no > previous location, where I involved in the meeting planning > where there were no visa issue. Joel, That

Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center

--On Monday, August 08, 2011 09:09 -0700 Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> I'm aware of the problem. I'm also aware that we keep holding >> meetings in the US and that some participants didn't find >> Canada a whole lot better this time around. And I'm also >> aware that Israeli passport holders have a

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