The IAB has just posted a statement on Identifiers and Unicode 7.0.0. Please
read it here:
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-statement-on-identifiers-and-unicode-7-0-0/
On behalf of the IAB,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
to
iab-chair at iab.org and execd at iab.org by 21 Nov 2014.
On behalf of the IAB,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
This is a gentle reminder that volunteers need to send in their short
statements in by Friday.
Thanks for considering this position,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
On Jul 3, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
The IAB (on behalf of the IETF) has been asked to supply
that these teleconferences will held weekly during
the candidate assessment process in May and June.
For more information about the ICANN NomCom see: http://nomcom.icann.org/
On behalf of the IAB,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
strong candidates.
On behalf of the IAB,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB recently requested nominations to the ICANN Technical
Liaison Group (TLG). We have a number of candidates, and we
are soliciting comment from the community on these candidates.
The following
Forwarding on behalf of Bob Hinden, Chair of the Internet Society Board of
Trustees.
-
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I am very pleased to announce that we have
chosen Kathy Brown as the next Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Society.
The ISOC Board conducted a very
...@gmail.com
Please send your remarks in confidence about any or all candidates to
iab-ch...@iab.org and ex...@iab.org. We thank you in advance for
your help.
Best regards,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB (on behalf of the IETF) has been asked to supply two technical
: Russ Housley
Review Date: 11-October-2013
IETF LC End Date: 11-November-2013
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Section 4 says: ... members of any given working group ... Working
groups do not have members; they have
SM:
This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without
requesting comments from the IETF Community. In my humble opinion it would
be good if there was a comment period.
This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not
change what happened at the
,
At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not
change what happened at the meeting. Making the statement very public
allows a good discussion of what should happen next. I look forward to that
discussion.
One
: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2013-09-23
IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-01
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary:
Major Concerns:
The use of required in Section 3.2.4 is confusing to me. It says:
In a basic session involving only audio there are typically two audio
/RTP streams between the two
Jim:
1) DNSSEC needs to have the time within one hour. But these devices do not
have TOY clocks (and arguably, never will, nor even probably should ever have
them).
So how do you get the time after you power on the device? The usual answer
is use ntp. Except you can't do a DNS
Dave:
is pgp compromised?
PGP is a packaging method. Absent grossly incompetent packaging -- and I've
never heard claims that PGP or S/MIME were guilty of that -- my sense is that
the interesting security mechanisms are the underlying algorithms.
Is there something about PGP that
Patrik:
Thanks for the correction. The error is mine.
Russ
On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 31 aug 2013, at 18:33, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote:
An active member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a
vice-chair of the Security Stability
Patrik:
Thanks for the correction. The error is mine.
Russ
On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 31 aug 2013, at 18:33, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote:
An active member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a
vice-chair of the Security Stability
In my experience, the RFC Editor relies on authors to compile non-MIB ASN.1
modules.
Russ
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:16 -0700, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
2) In the following, we suggest that ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
MIB-related
SM:
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.
The document is available for inspection here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/
From Section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have also enjoyed my time in Berlin. However, we need to complete the
analysis on the impact of VAT. I hope there is a way to avoid a cost to each
participant of an 19%. We heard in plenary that VAT clearly applies to
conferences, but it may
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 26-July-2013
IETF LC End Date: 16-Auguest-2013
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
RFC, but a few questions should be answered.
This document is the specification of the syntax and semantics
experiment is also available on the IAB wiki page:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/wiki/IETF-87#IETF87TechnicalPlenary:OPUSCodec
On behalf of the IAB,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
Townsley
Samuel Weiler
Hassan Zaheer
The community is invited to send comments about this selection to the IAB chair
iab-chair at iab.org and the IAB Executive Director execd at iab.org. We
expect to make a decision within the next few weeks.
Thanks in advance,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
, please send an email to iab-chair at iab.org and execd at
iab.org.
On behalf of the IAB,
Russ Housley
IAB Chair
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
Every appeal ever submitted to the IESG and its response can be found here.
On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
succeed?
If I knew that 97% of appeals get
Arturo:
The original call for nominations did this in two ways. First, it pointed to
RFC 6635, which defines the role of the RSOC. Second, it included a list of
the top four items that the RSOC is focusing on right now.
The current focus of the RSOC is on:
1) Overseeing and assisting the
: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2013-06-15
IETF LC End Date: 2013-06-27
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a
standards track RFC. I raise one major concern, and once it
is resolved, the document will be ready.
Major Concern:
In Section 12.2.3
I think this suggestion should be discussed on rfc-interest, not this mail list.
Russ
On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:55 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
RFC should be renamed to Resulted From Comments. It's now the endpoint of the
process; Request For Comments dated from when it
I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards track.
Russ
On Jun 10, 2013, at 10:45 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure
(X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:
- 'Enrollment over Secure Transport'
Tobias:
Thanks for the review. Really, the delegation id to the RIRs. which in turn
use the ICANN ASO to establish global policy.
Thanks again,
Russ
On May 16, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hi,
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this
David:
Thanks for your efforts on this document. Your first review was in May 2011,
and the document has improved greatly for you continued pushing on the concerns.
Russ
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Black, David wrote:
The -07 version of this draft resolves all of the issues raised by the
Many of the comments that were posted to this list have been incorporated.
Please comment on the updated document.
Russ
= = = = = = = = =
A new version of I-D, draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Geoff Huston and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename:
This was recorded in January 2013, when I was the IETF Chair. It was not
released until March 20th, when I was no longer IETF Chair
It is 15 minutes. It is not aimed at a technical crowd.
Russ
Alexey:
Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used to access
an archive, so only the administrator should be able to delete the spam.
Russ
On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sparks rjspa...@nostrum.com wrote:
While
Dave:
Alexey:
Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used
to access an archive, so only the administrator should be able to
delete the spam.
Russ
On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sparks
I wonder if the direction of Section 1.2 can be revised to make it more of an
engineering document.
It currently says:
In recent years, the urgency for moving from traditional transport
technologies, such as SONET/SDH, TDM, and ATM, to new packet
technologies has been rising. This is
Elwyn:
Two points:
Rereading things again, I have another suggestion;
4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the
Introduction. The Intro starts out talking about the document, its
goals, and what is in scope and out of scope of the document. Then
transitions to
On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:04 PM, SM wrote:
At 12:43 20-03-2013, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
I looked up the meaning of weasel words and found the following:
words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific
Next time you see Monique, please thank her for he service the the Internet
community.
From: IAB Chair [iab-ch...@iab.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:04 PM
To: Monique Morrow
Subject: Thank you for your service as NGN liaison manager
Dear Monique,
Next time you see Monique, please thank her for he service the the Internet
community.
From: IAB Chair [iab-ch...@iab.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:04 PM
To: Monique Morrow
Subject: Thank you for your service as NGN liaison manager
Dear Monique,
David:
1) In Section 1, goal #2, Hierarchical Allocation, I believe a reference
the definition in RFC 5226 - Section 4.1. Well-Known IANA Policy
Definitions, should be considered.
We could do so, but I do not believe that the few word in RFC 5226 on
hierarchical allocation improve the
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-iesg-opsplenary
Please review and comment.
Russ
A new, I-D, draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt, has been posted. I am writing to
ask for your review.
Russ
= = = = = = = = = =
Filename:draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt
Title: The Internet Numbers Registry System
Creation date: 2013-03-14
Group: Individual
extracting RAI from Transport?
Allison
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to
make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also
has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward
the ITU model.
Dave:
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is
to make sure that the process was followed.
The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG
also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a
step toward the
Sam:
So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and
demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly
value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the
AD joins the IESG.
We mostly agree. We both agree that strong technical
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which
one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious.
It is
Mary:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be
obvious. It is
The Internet Hall of Fame nominations are now open. Please provide your
nominations here: http://internethalloffame.org/nominations.
Thanks.
Russ
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-hall-fame-celebrates-internet-leaders-second-annual-induction-ceremony-set-june-2013
You may
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-hall-fame-celebrates-internet-leaders-second-annual-induction-ceremony-set-june-2013
You may know someone that deserves to be nominated ...
Russ
= = = = = = = =
Internet Hall of Fame Celebrates Internet Leaders: Second Annual Induction
Ceremony Set
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
1.1. What is a Working Group Draft?
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet Drafts (I-D).
Melinda and/or Randy have said what I want to say, but as a factual
clarification to
Brian:
Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this proposed
text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the BCP to get
all of the details.
Russ
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't much like the change in approach. I
Stephan:
Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us
that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to
participants.
Russ
On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi,
Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it
Stephan:
Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
responsibilities to participants.
That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I
don't think that empirical data
Alessandro:
No. We held a BOF to answer exactly that question. The conclusion was that no
new policies were needed, but that educational material was desirable.
Russ
On Nov 3, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Thu 01/Nov/2012 18:31:47 -0400 Russ Housley wrote:
A formal
John:
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 tell.
Because I am personally very reluctant to see this handled
A formal policy requires IETF consensus, and it would be published as a BCP in
the RFC series.
Russ
On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, David Rudin (LCA) wrote:
At a high level, I'm curious what the difference is between an FAQ and a
formal policy? I ask since Section 6 of the FAQ seems to be
Mike:
As Joel already said, the recall process is not dependent on the wishes of the
IAOC.
Further, please note that IAB, IESG, and IAOC members cannot be recall petition
signers. RFC 3777 says:
1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are
qualified to be voting
Mike:
Yup. But I'd say their wishes would have a great deal of influence on
whether or not this would go forward. And I'd still like to get at least
some indication that this is their desired outcome at this point. I think,
if nothing else, this needs to be part of whatever record
Stephane:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:09:22AM -0700,
IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote
a message of 155 lines which said:
This is an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 'Affirmation of the Modern
Paradigm for Standards'.
What's the point of this Call for Comment? Was there any chance that
i started the thread on nanog. i am not sure abha or jon would want to
be on such a list. remember them and honor and carry on their work,
don't memorialize them.
With all respect, it is not just about the person, it is about their work,
its importance, the history of this Internet and
I am very supportive of this idea.
Russ
On Oct 21, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
A thread on the nanog list, about abha ahuja, reminds me of a suggestion I
made casually to a few folk after the last IETF meeting:
We should consider having a persistent IETF page in
I agree that this sentence needs changed. However, I think that one other
sentence should be updated while we are dealing with the IAOC in this document.
RFC 3777 says:
Member Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting
member of the IESG or IAB may be questioned,
Dave:
I agree that this sentence needs changed. However, I think that one other
sentence should be updated while we are dealing with the IAOC in this
document.
RFC 3777 says:
Member Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting
member of the IESG or IAB may
I felt that the IETF Last Call would bring it to the attention of the
community. This seems worthwhile because the opinions are about an IETF
process.
Russ
On Sep 25, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
I don't understand the process for this document.
I read Russ's words, but
SM:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Document Shepherding Throughout a Document's Lifecycle'
draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd-00.txt as Informational RFC
The author is documenting his own opinion, and he is presenting
Dave:
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments
that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to
be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a
court order to do so. That said, the IESG firmly believes
Dave:
This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its
own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel
express comfort with this language?
Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this
is the resulting text. This text was never
Todd:
The intended recipients are two public mail lists. Given that situation the
legend at the bottom of you message seems inappropriate to me.
Russ
On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:30 PM, tglassey wrote:
[snip]
Todd Glassey
--
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the
Todd:
The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards track
RFCs.
Russ
On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:36 PM, tglassey wrote:
On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Dave:
Russ - can the Independent Submission Stream (ISS) be used to create a fully
franchised IETF Standard
I believe that the IETF has all of the necessary rights to reproduce,
distribute, and display publicly all Internet-Drafts. Here is my analysis:
In RFC 1310, March 1992, the IAB describes Internet-Drafts, but
it does not define the rights that contributors grant. As best I can
determine, the
Simon:
The authors wanted to grant additional rights beyond those that are granted by
the TLP. They indicated those rights in Section 10 of the internet-Draft.
This was challenged during WG Last Call, and it was challenged during IETF Last
Call. In each case, the authors make their desire
of a particular document.
I'm happy if this is now the policy, as it would allow including more
source code into RFCs.
/Simon
Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
Simon:
The authors wanted to grant additional rights beyond those that are
granted by the TLP. They indicated those
demand is not permitted even if
there is community support for the content of a particular document.
I'm happy if this is now the policy, as it would allow including more
source code into RFCs.
/Simon
Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
Simon:
The authors wanted to grant
Alessandro:
If an I-D is posted with secret text, then the secret is disclosed. I-D are
copied to many shadow repositories all over the world. So, removing the I-D
from ietf.org will not remove the secret text from the Internet.
Please explain what you mean by inappropriate boilerplate? The
The announcements for interim meetings are posted here:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim.html.
Without doing any statistical analysis, the list does not show a shift in the
way the IETF is working. Some WGs like to make use of face-to-face or virtual
interim meetings. Most do this when they
The document says:
o Bullet 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by this:
The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
volunteers, 4 liaisons, and an advisor.
The Past Chair is missing.
The adviser is not required,
The document says:
o Bullet 15 is replaced by these two bullets:
15.1. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and
sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC,
including
The document says:
o Bullet 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by this:
The nominating committee comprises at least a
Chair, 10 voting volunteers, 4 liaisons, and an
advisor.
The Past Chair is missing.
The adviser is not
As of Friday morning, we are very close to the goal. As of 9:00 AM this
morning, we have $24,905 from 80 donors. Please help if you can.
Thanks,
Russ
On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Our current totals as of noon today, the Open Internet Endowment has received
$19,245
Thank you! We made it. We received $26,255 from 90 donors.
Thanks agin,
Russ
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
As of Friday morning, we are very close to the goal. As of 9:00 AM this
morning, we have $24,905 from 80 donors. Please help if you can.
Thanks,
Russ
Our current totals as of noon today, the Open Internet Endowment has received
$19,245 from 54 donors. Thanks to all.
It would be great to reach $25,000 (or more) from 75 donors (or more) by lunch
tomorrow. Please help if you can.
There will be a table at the Bits-N-Bites tonight. People
Dan:
Only protocol specifications make use of Ethertypes. The statement is intended
to apply to any protocol specification on the IETF Stream (Standards Track RFC,
Informational RFC, or Experimental RFC) that needs to allocate a new Ethertype.
Russ
On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Romascanu,
Joe:
I think you missed my point. In a PKI, when the issuer significantly
changes the policy, subsequent certificates have a different policy
identifier. I do not see a similar concept here.
You're right, I did miss your point, quite thoroughly :-)
I am guessing that the answer is
Joe:
I think you missed my point. In a PKI, when the issuer significantly changes
the policy, subsequent certificates have a different policy identifier. I do
not see a similar concept here.
Russ
On Jul 16, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi Russ,
On 2012-07-15, at 11:39, Russ
Peter:
Thanks for the review. I've not read this document yet, but you review raises
a question in my mind.
If a DNSSEC policy or practice statement is revised or amended, what actions
are needed make other aware of the change?
Russ
On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Peter Yee wrote:
I am the
,
and thus the positions for which the nominating committee is
responsible for filling, are as follows:
IAOC:
Dave Crocker
IAB:
Alissa Cooper
Joel Halpern
David Kessens
Danny McPherson
Jon Peterson
Dave Thaler
IESG:
Russ Housley (General Area)
Pete Resnick (Applications Area
.
Cheers,
Mehmet
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of ext Russ
Housley
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:41 PM
To: Thomas Nadeau
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking
wares
Julian:
Do you object to http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive for the old version of the Tao?
Russ
On Jul 4, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-06-21 23:08, Russ Housley wrote:
This URL http://www.ietf.org/tao will bring up the current document. It
works exactly the same as http
Julian:
No, I was just trying to understand *why* the archive can't be at
http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive.
I was told that we cannot have http://www.ietf.org/tao directed to the document
and also be the directory containing the archive directory.
Russ
There was a long discussion about this event prior to it being scheduled.
Sorry you missed that discussion.
We will have a discussion after the event to determine if we should do it again.
Russ
On Jun 28, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
Has the IETF morphed into a
This URL http://www.ietf.org/tao will bring up the current document. It
works exactly the same as http://www.ietf.org/tao.html.
This means that http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive cannot be used as suggested
on this thread.
I propose the following URLs for the Tao:
- current Tao:
Brian:
There was no announcement that this change was about to be deployed; however,
there was a long discussion of the change. It started with a request for the
HTML version of the I-D instead of the plain text version. At the end of the
discussion the decision was to use the Datatracker
I want to highlight one think in this document. The document says:
There is an existing tool for supporting Nomcom work. The set of
requirements specified in this document are mainly enhancement
requirements or behavior changes to the existing tool. Unless
otherwise stated all of
Paul:
It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content. I
think that is not the case. Rather, the initial content will come from
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
Do you want draft-hoffman-tao4677bis to be published as the final RFC version
in the Tao series?
Russ
On Jun
Paul and Brian:
Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
to appeal like anything
Andrew:
That is the current plan, but we have not seen all of the WG requests yet, so
it is subject to change.
Russ
On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Dear colleagues,
At the last meeting in Paris, the Friday sessions ended by 13:30.
I haven't seen (but might have
I have a concern here. When I did the AD review for this document, I was quite
surprised how stale it had become. For example, the document told people to
send I-Ds to the Secretariat for posting instead of pointing to the online I-D
submission tool. If we put it in a wiki, there will be
Sam:
I'm seeking clarity. Are you suggesting that the pre-WG mail list ask this
question while drafting the charter, or are you suggesting that the IESG
include this question in the call for external review of the charter, or both?
Russ
On May 26, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'd
For what it is worth, here is my opinion on this subject (which I was
asked to post here).
I see possible privacy law problems with posting the blue sheets, so
I would not.
I see a good reason to scan and have images of new blue sheets, make
it easier to respond to subpoenas.
I do
BCP 79 says:
Reasonably and personally known: means something an individual
knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to
indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
1 - 100 of 448 matches
Mail list logo
