Good issues are being raised. Certainly there needs to be openness
about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process.
I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to,
however. Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the right thing
with regard
Peter Sherbin writes...
policies regarding cost and authentication. In that regard,
snail-mail is not a very good analogy for e-mail discussions.
The basic premise is all the same: user - need to send -
delivery charge.
Fee collector does not matter: US Post, UPS, FedEx, DHL,
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...
I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email'
schemes that people have don't work.
I'm not so sure about that. The fact that there is a real cost
certainly changes the dynamics of unsolicited mail, as well as the
business model of the purveyors.
Keith Moore writes...
what the WG charter says and how the WG output is used are
different things. IMHO we need to consider the potential
unintended consequences of our efforts in IETF, not just what
we intend. network operators do not limit their use of
technology to what we write in
Noel Chiappa writes...
...I think perhaps the most useful one in practise is
another one which I mentioned earlier:
Rather than having everyone spend ten minutes on
deciding who to select, a subset (which the random
draw hopefully makes reasonably representative of
Dave Crocker writes...
The key point is having a status that is determined by
market penetration, rather than technical details. Proposed
is for the technical work. Full is for market success.
That sounds reasonable.
By way of providing some incentive, I suggest that Proposed
have a
Stewart Bryant writes...
If linearised formulas were a good idea mathematicians would use them
:)
Translation to ASCII representation should surely be the final step in
implementation not something imposed during the understanding and
description phase.
If symbolic formulas were useful in
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin writes...
So , IMHO, the IETF urgency is today the other way around:
incorporating into RFC standards, practices or tables authoritatively
written or thought in another language than English, or in English
using normative non-ASCII art drafts or using term in a meaning
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...
Ah here you make the mistake of thinking that the IETF community is
the
Internet community. Perhaps forty years ago, but certainly not today.
The IETF does not make any effort to be representative of the Internet
community.
I beg to differ. I think the IETF
Ole Jacobsen writes...
This is a good point. It even applies to the IETF secretariat. It used
to
be impossible to register with your real name if it contained
non-ASCII
characters. I think that has changed, I recall having Seen Olafur
Gudmundson's badge with the real Icelandic curly d (or
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...
I think that what we should do is to send the IEEE 801.b/g group a
polite letter pointing out that if our people here at the IETF cannot
figure this stuff out then their less technically astute customers
might
be having some trouble as well.
I don't believe
Dave Singer writes...
Some testing and robustness guidelines from the 802.11 group
would also help.
While you may believe that IEEE 802.11 should provide these services, I
will note that the Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) currently fills that gap.
___
Ietf
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...
You sound like a 1950s British trades unionist calling his men out on
strike over demarcation.
Insult me, if it makes you feel better. I stand by my advice.
This is a product usability problem, not a technical shortcoming of the
underlying standards. My
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin writes...
Describing this way the key societal matters at hand
certainly shows the IETF is not interested/competent and does not
intend to invest in them.
I agree, and I see others who seem to concur, that human behavior is of
legitimate concern in systems design, and
Eliot Lear writes...
I guess what I'm saying is that who develops the running code and who
actually knows how the code should be developed to interact with
humans
can be very different...
Indeed. No argument there. :-)
... and while we at the IETF have the expertise in
writing code, we
Anthony G. Atkielski writes...
There are no objective standards for obnoxious, abusive, or
disrespectful speech.
I think that this is not so hard to distinguish as you suggest. There
are two general cases: (a) overly insistent and (b) overly personal.
The overly insistent poster will almost
Anthony G. Atkielski writes...
Then it should be straightforward to automate it in the form of a
robot that emotionlessly evaluates each post.
No. I did not claim that the evaluation was objective. It is in fact
subjective. I do claim that the reasonable man (and I use that term
in the
Eric Gray writes...
To one person, the mere fact that another person disgrees
with them is conclusive proof that they don't understand. To
another person, the mere statement that they don't understand
clearly implies some impairment.
It's possible that both of these people
For those who suggest that PR action is never appropriate to take
against any person, let me suggest that rights of free expression are
not unlimited. Any human right has practical limits when it comes into
direct conflict with the rights of another.
For example, consider two college roommates.
Juergen Quittek writes...
It [call home] looks like a good topic for a BoF session in the
OaM area.
There we could find out the relevance of the problem and discuss
requirements for potential solutions. Also there we can identify
which working group would be the right one to deal with the
Daniel Senie writes...
Based on your email, the consensus of the group is that TCP is good
enough, since it'll only be interesting to manage networks that are
operating cleanly. I can't imagine that's what the WG really
concluded, but that's how your email reads.
It seems to me that the
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that SNMP must always work
across Firewalls and NATs. The original objection to the proposed
charter was that it did not include support for Call Home
functionality.
I can see how Call Home would solve the NAT problem, at least on a
sporadic basis. The
James M. Polk writes...
Few people talk during sessions, and those that do, know to sit where
they
can readily get to a mic to make a point.
Yes, but sometimes there's a choice to be made between sitting where
there is easy access to a mic and sitting where there are open power
strip outlets.
* ;) I'm a DNS person, I only do lookups, not searches.
I am not sure what the distinction is, ...
A lookup typically returns either a single, exact match or a failure
message. A search typically returns a [large] number of matches, of
varying degrees of exactitude.
24 matches
Mail list logo
