On 20 May 2024, at 12:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
> nobody is interested in implementing it aside from the implementer.
s/implementer/proposer (brain ahead of fingers)
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at b
ale *would* be too significant a
commitment to make. Implementation is not, at least for some folks.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubs
On 10/13/13 5:42 AM, t.p. wrote:
I find the security considerations in this registration rather weak.
What might have sufficed in 2005 seems to me inadequate for 2013. I
would expect a clearer statement of what are or are not considered
threats or attacks and what mitigations there then are for
On 10/11/13 2:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
At this point, a working week through the four week last call, I am wondering
whether the volume of comments and changes merit waiting for a revised version
before I do a last call review, or whether I should dive in with the current
version and risk
Finally back to this original review.
On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
In terms of philosophy and desirable practice, the draft
discusses an extremely appealing model and generally explains its
nature and practice well. However the draft tends to confuse what is
(or has been)
On 10/8/13 8:56 AM, t.p. wrote:
1) It does not state its target audience until, perhaps, the reference
in the Conclusions, to WG Chairs. [...] Are
ADs assumed to be above and beyond the considerations in this I-D:-(
An excellent point. No, *every* consensus caller in the IETF should in
On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
I think it misses two
important points that should be addressed prior to publication:
1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and
gauging consensus
Yeah, as I just replied to Tom, I think this is worth adding, probably
in section 2
On 10/7/13 6:23 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Oh my! I just saw the IESG agenda, and this_is_ proposed for BCP.
No, it's not. I'm just prolific this month. What you see on the agenda
is draft-resnick-retire-std1, not this document. That one *is* for BCP,
but draft-resnick-on-consensus
On 10/6/13 7:30 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
This is a VERY useful document, and I look forward to compelling my WG
participants to read it, with a pop quiz afterwards.
I've been exceedingly satisfied to hear this sort of thing from you and
the other folks who posted and talked to me about
On 9/18/13 7:19 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
In full context:
In fact, the IETF review is more extensive than that done
in other SDOs owing to the cross-area technical review
performed by the IETF,exemplified by technical review by
the full IESG at last stage of specification
Posting as the responsible AD for the document in question.
On 9/18/13 1:20 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Since this was not understood, I'll attempt to clarify. An effort to keep
these conversations fairly concise seems to lead to a level of confusion with
those not familiar with DNS.
I'm
On 9/17/13 11:27 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I just posted the third version of the draft at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02
I would like to change IESG to IETF in five places:
Section 1:
the IESG has evolved its review processes
Section 2:
IESG
On 9/17/13 5:52 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
I would like to change IESG to IETF in five places:
Section 1:
the IESG has evolved its review processes
Section 2:
IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards
the IESG
On 9/9/13 4:24 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sep 7, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Below is the list of issues brought up during Last Call of
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.
[...]
7. Clarifications are needed regarding the number of lookups to do in 4.6.4.
Below is the list of issues brought up during Last Call of
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I have tried to collect together the common
issues and tease out the ones that are slightly different. Below each
issue, I've given what I take to be the answer to the issue (either the
change that needs to
On 9/6/13 6:33 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Almost everyone arriving in Vancouver will have a passport in any
case. The protocol will probably be something like provide your key
etc data in advance, print something out and present that plus your ID
document in the ceremony.
p style=snark
On 9/6/13 12:54 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:56 AM
The design I think is practical is to eliminate all UI issues by
insisting that encryption and
On 9/6/13 7:02 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
...It may still be
good protection against more casual attacks, but we do the users
the same disservice by telling them that their transmissions are
secure under those circumstances that we do by telling them that
their data are secure when they see a
On 9/6/13 8:23 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I think that one of the more important things we
can do is to rethink UIs to give casual users more information
about what it going on and to enable them to take intelligent
action on decisions that should be under their control. There
are good reasons
On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather than
IESG minutes as the publication of record
The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state
the pending actions too, as well as the completed ones,
Having seen no further comments, Jari has asked me to post -01 with the
changes. Done.
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive
removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes
sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do
but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says:
The RFC Editor
On 9/3/13 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
...the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3...
Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from
6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal
On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
rant class=shortSo that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that
update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves./rant
Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's
On 9/3/13 4:28 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Pete,
At 16:02 03-09-2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
OK, does this do anything for anyone?
Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the
publication of an official summary of standards actions completed
and pending in the Internet Society's
I probably should have sent out this message over the weekend, but I was
hoping I would complete a bigger message soon. Since I'm still working
on that, a quick note to level set:
I have been reading all of the Last Call responses as they have come in.
I am in the process of reviewing the
On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Lesliej...@jlc.net wrote:
I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.
Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :)
See the message I just posted. Yes,
On 8/21/13 4:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that
is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that
line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you
OK, direct question; I'll take the (short) time to give a direct answer.
On 8/22/13 9:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the
equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless someone is
responsible for giving a more thorough
As per a suggestion in another thread: Would you also say that this
draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard? This is more
architectural overview than protocol per-se, but I do think it is
necessary to the understanding of the other protocol documents (hence it
is a normative
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me
On 8/21/13 2:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very
On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol
Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential
approval as an IAB stream RFC.
My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026.
On 8/20/13 3:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00
standards series is simply running an automated query on the database
and emitting the result as an RFC?
I'm sure that such a tool could be created. To date, I believe the
On 8/20/13 4:21 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
I support this. But it also raises a couple other questions.
What about rfcxx99 series, published along with the rfcxx00 series? Were
they ever formally retired?
That's not an IETF matter. There's no STD on this. There's nothing
(AFAICT) in a BCP
Speaking in my capacity as responsible AD for this WG and document, and
the one who is going to have to judge the consensus of this Last Call
and report to the IESG.
On 8/19/13 3:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Note that I am not the shepherd for this draft, but I am the WG
co-chair.
On Mon,
My apologies: A typo rendering a sentence incoherent that I missed
before hitting Send:
On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
* The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in
that they
set far too
I will let the document shepherd/editor address particular points in
this and other messages, but on one procedural point:
On 8/19/13 4:10 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
I don't believe there was an adequate answer from the advocates of
removing the SPF RR type...
That's an appropriate issue to
On 7/20/13 10:47 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
I was somewhat hoping to see more done in the mentor area of assisting
electronic participants. Of coarse, this sort of electronic mentoring
it could include an end goal to get folks more involved with the IETF
directly, i.e. go to meetings, become
On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
succeed?
My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html:
Accepted: 6
Denied: 25
Withdrawn: 1
One appellant appealed 12 times and all of the appeals were
On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed and ask
yourself Do I really want to be part of this club?
Other than a*very* small
On 4/1/13 4:41 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
On 3/28/13 1:17 PM, SM wrote:
At 05:13 28-03-2013, Burger Eric wrote:
I use the IMAP interface once, mark a bunch of things as read, and
then decide never to use the IMAP interface ever again. How long
does the server need to keep my (per-user) marking
On 6/19/13 2:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/19/2013 11:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of
practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or
management positions are men.
So again, it's not at all clear how that relates to the IETF (given
After reading some of the criticisms, I wonder if folks who think
they've been disagreeing with me are going to get to the end of this
message and say, Oh, if that's all he's on about, who cares? But *I*
of course think there is an important issue in here. Anyway, back into
the breach. David's
On 6/12/13 10:33 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Please describe the context of your email. Are you speaking for the IESG,
yourself as an AD, or an individual?
Oh, crap. And given that I'm usually the one giving people a hard time
about *this* issue, I feel especially bad about not being clearer.
On 6/12/13 3:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
'scuse front posting, but I'm going to outrageously summarise
Pete's point as I want substance in all Last Call comments, or
alternatively I will ignore +1 just as I will ignore -1.
Maybe not outrageous, but certainly wrong because...
On 6/12/13 5:10 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 06/12/2013 10:56 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Are the IESG people who disagree with you speaking for the IESG, or for
themselves?
That's really not clear already? In any case, I was disagreeing
with Pete as an individual since he was
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're
voting. Details below.
Specifically on Stephen's message:
On 6/10/13 7:36 PM,
On 6/11/13 3:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Pete,
On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages
Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the
IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the
entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request:
On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I have read the document, I a support
I initially replied to address Keith's comment. But a few things on Joe's:
On 5/15/13 7:41 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/15/2013 10:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please
On 5/3/13 9:32 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on in, but ADs need to manage their time,
and they need to balance between the immediate and the long term. They
have to do *both*, and especially NOT neglect longer-term stuff that
will have real and signficant, but not
Not disagreeing with your message, but a couple of clarifying points:
On 5/3/13 12:41 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
I would agree with you that weighting longer term is the 'right thing', but
given that people wait for an RFC number to implement, and then take the
position that RFC (PS) == STD, you
One quick thing:
On 5/2/13 1:14 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
From several past discussions it is clear that we are not really able
(maybe not willing) to change our processes.
Note that although we did ask the bigger question, the more central
question relates to what we on the IESG can do
On 4/30/13 7:45 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
So my personal opinion is that this is a valid discussion to be having
even if we're having it again in IETF LC.
Folks,
This document is *not* in IETF LC. A particular WG member, who was
apparently upset with the tone of the argument on the SPFBIS and
It did go to IETF-Announce. It's just no longer in the To: field so
people stop doing a reply-all and end up sending to it. (Basically, it's
Bcc'ed. For e-mail geeks like me: An empty group list of
IETF-Announce:; is now in the To: field.)
pr
On 4/22/13 3:39 PM, Clint Chaplin wrote:
Why did
I noticed this post from a few days ago, but I think instructive to talk
about. And this is not picking on James; I think it's likely that there
are many folk who have similar perceptions, and I think it's useful to
think about.
On 4/12/13 3:37 PM, James Polk wrote:
Eyeballing the IETF (and
On 4/17/13 2:21 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Look, bias stinks and when it exists its stench is detectable.
Dan, leaving aside all of your other comments for the moment (many of
which are straw men that nobody but you have suggested, speaking of
fallacies), this one comment is a serious problem
Damn. Breaking my two message rule.
On 4/18/13 4:47 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Now we're playing a subtle word game here. A bias that a statistician
might add is demonstrably different than what Melinda Shore has
_repeatedly_ referred to as gender bias. So when I'm talking about
bias I'm
On 4/3/13 9:46 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
I think I found a way to say this that strikes a good balance in -06.
Let me know what you think.
Excellent. Ship it.
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
On 3/16/13 3:05 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
My understanding, at least in the case of the TSV AD in this event, is that
- the IESG proposed qualifications they thought applied
- the nomcom may or may not have adjusted them, looked at the pool of
candidates that were willing to serve,
On 3/1/13 6:21 AM, t.p. wrote:
Can anyone help an ignorant European? Given a meeting time of 12:00
Noon ET [sic] on Sunday 10th March 2013, what is that in UTC?
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20130310T12p1=179
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
On 2/26/13 1:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to informally distribute updates directly
on the
list, and cuts off access to work
On 2/25/13 4:27 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
I have this scenario in mind:
A -12 comes out and I read it thoroughly and have about 10 points that
need to be addressed.
So I respond to the document (not in last call) and all of the points
are adequately (in my opinion) addressed.
A -13 is
Just to level set: I had not really intended for this document to be
discussed on the IETF general list quite yet. It still has quite a few
gaping holes. So even though it is posted as an I-D, I'm inclined to
have people send comments to me individually for the time being. If and
when I think
On 1/23/13 4:45 PM, David Morris wrote:
VDTs with long lines might have been inspired by line printers or
just the idea that long lines were better.
Definitely inspired by printers. I remember when we upgraded our ancient
VT100 terminals (which didn't have wide mode) to VT220 terminals and
Dean, I am struggling constantly with 2119 as an AD, because if I take
the letter (and the spirit) of 2119 at face value, a lot of people are
doing this wrong. And 2119 is a BCP; it's one of our process documents.
So I'd like this to be cleared up as much as you. I think there is
active harm
On 12/21/12 1:33 AM, SM wrote:
I used RFC 5735 as an example. There is a message from the person who
submitted the erratum at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13689.html The
threads of the discussion are at
On 11/29/12 3:45 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion.
Interesting. I am forced to (only somewhat facetiously) ask: Why are
*you* standing up, facilitating discussion, if you are the editor?
Shouldn't that be the chair's job? More
Like Randy, I am completely agnostic on the question of dividing the
registries vs. adding an attribute to the registries to distinguish
between reservations and other special uses. But one comment on the
other item in your message:
On 11/29/12 4:26 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
I also disagree
On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant
to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency
hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.
On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
It's Friday. Time to plug IPv6 some more. :-)
http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solution. They
avoided conflicts with RFC 1918 space by hijacking IPv4
On 11/26/12 2:56 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are taken seriously.
I need to believe that the
On 10/11/12 7:00 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
7) What should be considered when evaluating the composition of design
teams to avoid antitrust concerns?
Technical expertise, balance of interests (per the discussion in the join
IEEE/IAB/IETF document that was recently released), and no
Answering two bits I happen know the answers to:
On 9/21/12 7:48 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
[...]
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy
was the
On 9/18/12 8:45 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has some complaints; please check.
They were checked.
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
It does.
-- section 2.1, 2nd paragraph: The character encoding format of maildrops may not
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
It does.
Sorry. You said abstract, not intro. Got it.
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract,
that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
The IESG
On 9/5/12 1:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
I support this statement, with the additions suggested by Sam Hartman,
John Klensin, and (most importantly) Brian Carpenter.
In addition, I would suggest adding clarifying text to the extent that
I-Ds will remain to be stored in non publicly accessible
On 7/3/12 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am sure
you can sort the right status out with IESG.
+1
I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status.
On 7/17/12 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
requirements document in the sense
On 5/9/12 1:51 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by
sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list.
That seems reasonable, but publishing such
On 5/9/12 6:40 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of violation
without some sort of burden of proof.
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another way to DOS a WG with IPR.
If a person believes
On 3/15/12 8:41 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Along those lines how about setting up an IETF IMAP server with
mailboxes for each mailing list hosted by the IETF?
There has been a discussion under way for some time to get that to
happen. I believe RFP's are being thought about (or written).
pr
--
On 3/15/12 1:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
we have just entered the RFI stage. I see that as progress.
For draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch, or just draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch?
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax:
On 3/15/12 1:40 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 3/15/12 1:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
we have just entered the RFI stage. I see that as progress.
For draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch, or just draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch?
Nevermind. I am told it is for the latter. The former is being handled
Since the problem is a relative handful of large attachments, could a
solution just be to provide a repository for
mailing list members to store such files, yielding a URL they could
use in an email ? Then, the usual list feedback
would keep the attachment sizes manageable.
(*mumble*) Folks,
Good idea. I've added a comment to the tracker in the History section
for both documents.
pr
On 2/29/12 4:12 AM, t.petch wrote:
Pete
I agree with what you have done but would like to see it recorded in something
more accessible than an e-mail archive. Could it be added to the data tracker,
I wanted to inform the community of the results of the second Last Call
issued for draft-ietf-sieve-convert and
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message. To remind you of the circumstances:
After these two documents were approved by the IESG and sent on to the
RFC Editor, an IPR disclosure was made
On 2/17/12 7:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
And perhaps the focus for this issue should be on the ability of the
(relatively few) folk making decisions to distinguish between
substantive vs. political input, rather than on trying to prevent the
political input.
Getting the folk who evaluate
On 2/17/12 11:59 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Pete Resnickpresn...@qualcomm.com
We do need to make sure that the folks evaluating consensus know
that voting doesn't count and that their decisions are made by
consensus on the technical issues, not the number of
On 2/17/12 1:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:14:18PM -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in
Not to me. I don't see what they add.
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something
On 2/17/12 3:34 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
unnerving.
To the addressed folks who's messages appear below:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some objection
at the beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel Chiappa, and Brian
Carpenter. I agreed that the document could be misunderstood as
encouraging the use of the space as
On 2/14/12 1:50 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Are you now objecting to that replacement text and want -14 published as
is? Do you think the document should say that the new allocation can be
used as 1918 space? If so, please explain.
Not sure how a +1 to a statement saying I support
On 2/14/12 2:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no matter what the document
says.
[...]
any thought that this is not just adding to rfc 1918 is pure bs.
Of course it will be used as 1918 space. That's not the point of the text.
The text is saying,
On 2/9/12 10:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
As I (and many others) remain opposed to this entire concept I think
it's incredibly unfortunate that the IESG has decided to shift the topic
of conversation from whether this should happen to how it should
happen.
As an AD who is now comfortable
On 2/10/12 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 15:42, Pete Resnick wrote:
I expect there will be clarifications as per the earlier messages in
this thread: This is *not* to be used as additional 1918 space.
The following is not meant to be a snark
Not taken as such.
...I
On 2/10/12 6:38 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
and can be used by other
people who build sane equipment that understands shared addresses can
appear on two different interfaces.
With so complicated functionality of NAT today, the only
practical approach to build
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
