call.
Could we please change that?
Sending an email through ietf-announce@ is not that much work [1]
[2]. If you broadcast the announcement to the entire community it's
public. You don't have to worry about the questions you asked above
or conspiracy theories.
Regards,
-sm
1. http
it was a question of meetings and not
interesting messages.
If you do not follow the mailing list how likely is it that you will
understand the discussions during the conference call?
It's unlikely that I would be able to understand the discussions if I
have not read the mailing list.
Regards,
-sm
mentioned that doing document reviews in
presentation form where the editor is the one doing the slides has
created this problem [2]. This comes down to we have seen others
doing it and that's why we do it.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/assignments/media-types/application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
that with
Whatever.'
Yes, I am using a bad example. My excuse is that it is to illustrate
the difference between two groups.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76116.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76120.html
on this list than
one might like. That leaves the rest of us with a choice
Probably.
Please note that I don't know the solution.
Regards,
-sm
. Working
group draft. Some pages/docs imply the distinction, but not
define it.
The Last Call is longer (see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html ). It may
be easier to drop Section 4 as the draft discusses about IETF
Working Group Draft.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. An I
Hi Arturo,
At 15:56 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
described/proposed in the document. Accepting the document assuming that
chairs are going to turn bad ideas to good in my opinio is not good.
My guess is that you will be approached to chair a WG at some point.
Regards,
-sm
as you have the Last Call.
In Section 3:
2. Where there are two or more WG chairs, all need to agree to fast-
track processing.
That can be rolled into item 1.
Could you ask an AD to sponsor this draft and generate the Last Call?
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Make the draft experimental. Add
that what you are asking about is a sanity check. You could
sound some people to get a sense of which direction to take.
Regards,
-sm
specification just to get a stamp on it is not.
Some people like having that stamp.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76024.html
2. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-rfcform.html
3. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-httpauth.html
4. http
to protest.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75826.html
the work is being delayed or the working group is
doing nothing I would point to the objection. What I won't say is
whether people who will be implementing the work or who are actually
going to review the work will walk away.
Regards,
-sm
that calls for
IANA assignment.
This draft changes it.
Regards,
-sm
, even in part, on failure of the WG to comply with
that 2418 requirement.
The community is too lethargic to push back on those barely
literate notes. One of these days there will be such an appeal.
Regards,
-sm
for getting wg review of
them, then the wg has bigger problems.
I listen to the audio as it allows me to understand the decisions and
see whether the notes will give some random person an understanding
of what happened.
Regards,
-sm
was not properly followed?
A working group would be using consensus by apathy if there isn't any
mailing discussion or any trace of discussions in the minutes. The
alternatives are to push back or shut down the working group.
Regards,
-sm
to be a global policy
proposal. It would likely take over a year to get such a proposal
through all the RIRs.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Don't boil the ocean to kill a single fish (credits - Noel Chiappa)
1.
https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/global-addressing/allocation-ipv6-rirs
must relegate the
responsibility to fill the vacancy to the prior year's nominating
committee.
Regards,
-sm
discontent? :-)
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75881.html
allocation. Could the document shepherd upload the write-up
and provide some details about that?
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg03848.html
will be assigned only upon IETF Review.
The previous sentence mentions hierarchical allocation and the above
sentence mentions IETF Review. It is not clear how assignments from
this space will be made.
Regards,
-sm
participation from emerging and developing economies.
Is there any analysis to determine whether there has been an increase
in IETF participation from these economies? Is the outreach effort a failure?
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75742.html
2. http://www.ietf.org
I'll quote Tom Petch [1]:
there is a spectrum in communication from the richest, when I am
standing in front of you, looking you in the eye, to the poorest, a
tweet.
On a different thread Ted Hardie commented about trust issues
[2]. That's difficult to establish remotely.
Regards,
-sm
.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75140.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg06346.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75782.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75744.html
5. http
are disappointed
with the Internet Society.
Regards,
-sm
meetings in Latin America a few months
ago [1]. It might be possible (non-IETF effort) to reduce the cost
to participants to offset an expensive venue in Latin America.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74666.html
,
-sm
P.S. The audio quality was bad.
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75244.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07929.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/55/slides/plenary-2/index.html
did not meet
the SLA target in April and June. I don't have a problem with that
as the IANA person said that she will do X on Y date and that is what happened.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Thanks to the person who sent me the correct link for the IANA report
fit that profile. I prefer not to view things as
actually not in a bad place as it encourages complacency.
Personally, I like to see messages such as
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75744.html as it
helps to understand the views which often go unheard.
Regards,
-sm
.
Agreed.
The thread that Adrian commented about was Newcomers. During
yesterday's plenary someone mentioned mentorship. These (new)
participants will be the committed ones of tomorrow or else there is
no tomorrow.
Regards,
-sm
of the incumbents? Not important. Maintaining
the current structures? Not important. Change for change's sake? Not
valuable. Making sure the mission gets done? Pretty much the only
thing that matters.
Agreed.
Regards,
-sm
. It
might help Olafur if people double-check RFC 3777 to ensure that they
fulfill the requirements for NomCom eligibility. There is also the
oral tradition side ...
Regards,
-sm
option.
One generally takes a three-way hum [3].
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg10812.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75414.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75523.html
of
paper, electronic or otherwise, can do.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75340.html
that a member recall requires a signed petition by at
least 20 people. It does not require the approval of the IAOC or the
IESG. As such, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.
Regards,
-sm
by NomCom. It would be
problematic for the IAOC and IETF chairs to declare the position vacant.
Regards,
-sm
for personal reasons now resolved, what would be the
course of action?
There are a few bugs in RFC 3777. It might be better not to
discuss about that now.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75413.html
Standard will be STD 13 or something else. Could the information be shared?
Are there any guidelines about the publication of Internet Standards,
i.e. how are STDs assigned and who does the assignment?
Regards,
-sm
P.S. According to mx.ams1.isc.org mgr...@isc.org is not a valid email address
. The question seems
like an IETF matter. Has this question been discussed by the WG, and
if so, what was the conclusion?
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75156.html
will choose better support for different linguistic environments
against the potential side effects of backward incompatibility. It
seems that the WG has taken on an intractable problem.
Regards,
-sm
write-up. :-)
Regards,
-sm
-updates-20 updates RFC 4033, RFC 4034
and RFC 4035. The normative references in RFC 5011 might have to be
updated accordingly.
Regards,
-sm
Binary Labels,
obsoleting [RFC2673].
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04 mentions that:
The Binary label type is Historic [RFC2671bis].
The IETF might wish to consider whether it is necessary to align the
text in the two drafts.
Regards,
-sm
1. Whether it is a change or not depends upon how
change in the draft is the inclusion of requirements for
middleboxes. It's not mentioned under in Appendix A.2.
BTW, the RFC 2119 reference could be normative.
Regards,
-sm
for meetings. Surprisingly, the IETF does not
meet Requirement 2 as the Area Directors have a
dictatorial level of control over the
standardization decisions in their area. It is
interesting to note that there are different interpretations of consensus.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org
the IESG in an unenviable
position to decide whether to share the email.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html
as an Independent Stream submitting a
Standards Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the
IETF Stream if the author would like the I-D to be published on the
Standards Track. A WG can adopt such an I-D.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. I read your message [1] again. The first part seems
the draft, I'd say that the intent is to change
shepherding from a mechanical exercise into a information
gathering/input for decision-making/process-stumbling avoidance
exercise. The hurdle is political inappropriateness.
Regards,
-sm
Living Standard [1]
really means by willful violation [2] -- e.g., is it just an
The following message was posted over a year ago:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03064.html
Regards,
-sm
on the battlefield.
Regards,
-sm
which can be used to gauge whether the author continues to
like the draft or is still interested in working on it. It is also a
way for the author to gauge whether the IETF is still interested in
working on the draft.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. If you say that the draft expiry makes the process more
to internet-drafts@.
Regards,
-sm
into the details of the Specification Required
policy? Permanent and readily available public specification would
be better than the reference to RFC 2026.
BTW, the RFC 5023 informative reference is missing.
Regards,
-sm
in extreme cases. That
does not mean that things should be done without the author's consent.
Regards,
-sm
? On
an unrelated note, It is strange that the IETF Trust hasn't had a
meeting since March.
Regards,
-sm
. Some
people consider it as inefficient to trim the content in their
reply. That has been triggering more digests from an IETF mailing
list. Some message bodies are a continuation of the subject line.
Whether any of the above is a good idea is subjective.
Regards,
-sm
allowances for circumstances such as court
orders. I used when necessary and left it to the IESG to make the decision.
Note that there is an inconsistency between the above the existing
guidelines. Saying that an I-D has expired and distributing the I-D
is a conflicting signal.
Regards,
-sm
be
argued that the I-D will remain available on the Internet. There is
nothing the IETF can do about that. The IETF can make the matter
easier for the author by not distributing the I-D automatically after
six months.
Regards,
-sm
be we don't do that.
Yes.
Regards,
-sm
, thereby
causing the latter to be removed from the _active_ I-D
repository and moved off to the historical I-D archive.
Yes.
Mistakes can happen. The expiration provides, to some degree, the
ability to forget.
Regards,
-sm
they are agreeing or disagreeing to. There is a
responsible Area Director in the room to perform a sanity check.
Regards,
-sm
Hi Lixia,
At 15:34 12-08-2012, Lixia Zhang wrote:
Personally I do not feel the tone of this message is most
appropriate in this ongoing discussion.
That one sentence shines on your character. :-)
Regards,
-sm
and they will lose their original meaning.
Regards,
-sm
BCPs to express
IETF Consensus.
Regards,
-sm attachment: 3759cb5c.jpg
,
-sm
making positions who clearly think it does.
Yes.
Regards,
-sm
for that to happen in the IETF.
Regards,
-sm
running the Internet from his garage, no?
:-)
Regards,
-sm
be a
much better idea much less deceptive.
RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements.
Regards,
-sm
something the IETF would say as it comes out as hollow words.
Regards,
-sm
dark beer in 1
litre steins.
I discovered that it's best to drink only one, if flying home at
30,000 feet the
next day. [9]
Obviously, not enough Canadians from outside Toronto were asked.
Everyone in the country loves to hate Toronto. [10]
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive
. It is not mentioned directly
in the draft. There may be some indirect references in some of the text.
Regards,
-sm
___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
Hi Vinayak,
At 20:49 07-08-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
@SM : Where do you get this data. It will be interesting to chart the
data for IETF participants over the years by country / affliation. If
The list of participants for the last meeting is at
https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf84
America first. My guess is that it
might eventually go to India. If it ever goes to Africa it will be
more of a political statement than anything else.
Regards,
-sm
may be control. It may also be a desire to
address a problem which people consider as important.
Regards,
-sm
1. There is generally one of more interesting
presentations at SAAG. I don't know how the Security ADs make that happen.
about corporate domination generally comes down to
perception. The problem in my humble opinion is mistrust. It can be
caused by miscommunication.
Regards,
-sm
us
that the situation is so complex that we need not worry our little
heads about it. In fact I believe the exact opposite: The openness of
Yes.
Regards,
-sm
://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74191.html ). I
would not say that your draft is not helpful. It is up to you to
assess whether draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00 can gain IETF Consensus.
Regards,
-sm
companies at the top of the list being
selected as a NomCom member is not that low. One could look at
NomCom as an exercise in randomness or one could look at it as an
exercise in let the market decide.
Regards,
-sm
to have at least read the OAuth specification. I had
noticed that many of those who share their valuable thoughts have
not even spent the time to look at the document.
I wonder whether I read the OAuth2 specifications. :-)
Regards,
-sm
discusses about stacking up the selection process (see primary
affiliation) but it does get into other details which can influence
the selection process. If the objective is to avoid self-selection,
one could question the process for the appointment of the NomCom Chair.
Regards,
-sm
it is detrimental to have such an outcome.
Regards,
-sm
.
Regards,
-sm
.
Regards,
-sm
of incentive, to talk to people
from outside the area.
The draft is well-written and it covers the challenges. I am left
with a sense that the recommendations are viewed more in terms of
meetings and the IESG.
Regards,
-sm
reference I posted on
WG mailing list about browser identification). I am ok if you want
to keep the requirement.
Regards,
-sm
/msg06664.html
I think that will make parsing harder, and give no benefit at all.
It allows for more random bits of information.
Regards,
-sm
. The implementer
can decide what to put in that field.
Regards,
-sm
in a draft which is about of
a tutorial.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
2. http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/
is who is going to review the work.
Regards,
-sm
of draft-farrell-decade-ni-08. The justification
for a nih URI scheme elicits a smile. The idea is futuristic. :-) I
suggest having a version without the nih scheme.
Regards,
-sm
in the draft
The last comment in the message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73779.html meant
that I neither support nor oppose publication. I was interested in
seeing your arguments about the draft.
Regards,
-sm
should
be discussed in a Working Group or something else?
BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.
Regards,
-sm
changing the state of consensus.
Regards,
-sm
with standardization. The last reason does not
apply for Expert review.
Regards,
-sm
is the
issue. The better path is to have clear documentation (what you
mentioned above) about the criteria so that the registrant can tell
what the expectations are. I'll add publication of the median time
to process a request as information for the registrant.
Regards,
-sm
the last sentence is phrased as a
requirement. The first two sentences has a clear explanation about
the authority part of the name. I would remove the third sentence.
Regards,
-sm
have to be discussed again when there
isn't any new input available.
Is the above related to discussions in the MANET WG?
Regards,
-sm
attempt to change priority means breaking the
DKIM signature.
I am not proposing text to avoid a significant rewrite of the proposal.
Regards,
-sm
?)
There is a Trac plugin for email notifications.
I am not thinking of the integration part as it requires more than a
lightweight effort. Eliot pointed out that there is a socialization
problem. Who knows, may be the collaborative effort might help.
Regards,
-sm
201 - 300 of 701 matches
Mail list logo
