Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Certainly one of the reasons I requested IETF-wide review for
the ISMS recharter is so that decisions like this can be
reviewed by the community. The IAB gets to see charters at
about the same time as the IESG does; they have
Fleischman, == Fleischman, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fleischman, I believe that network management is too important a
Fleischman, functionality to be designed such that it can only be
Fleischman, usable within highly confined environmental
Fleischman, constraints.
must work
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave (By the way, I am awestruck at the potential impact of
Dave changing SNMP from UDP-based to TCP-based, given the
Dave extensive debates that took place about this when SNMP was
Dave originally developed. Has THIS decision been
Eliot == Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eliot Daniel, All solutions will use a different SSH port as part
Eliot of the standard just so that firewall administrators have
Eliot the ability to block.
I don't actually think this has been decided yet. I believe arguments
were
John, what does it mean to put a registry document on the standards
track? In particular, how do you get multiple implementations of a
registry?
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
wayne == wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
wayne In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew
wayne Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the
document) do not consider this to be an experiment, then
perhaps the IETF should not publish SPF as
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 13:08 26/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
just a remark here. In the RFC 3066bis Last Call case the
IETF has the capacity not only to police but to impose
iesg == The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
iesg This last call is being reissued because this document
iesg contains a normative reference to an informational RFC:
iesg RFC 2144 The CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm. C. Adams. May
iesg 1997.
iesg It is customary to include
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John --On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 17:24 -0400 Sam Hartman
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
iesg == The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
iesg This last call is being reissued because this
document iesg contains a normative
The IETF Kerberos Working Group will hold an interim meeting
September 19-20, 2005. The meeting will be hosted by Microsoft at
their Platform Adoption Center in Redmond, WA, USA.
The primary purpose of this meeting will be to perform
work related to advancing the current Kerberos
specifications
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald --On tirsdag, august 09, 2005 16:33:46 -0400 John C
Harald Klensin
Harald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the notion of an AD who has contributed technically to a WG
in some significant way then pushing back
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spencer (offlist) - the current NOMCOM chair posted to the IETF
Spencer list that for two AD positions this cycle, there were
Spencer only two candidates, and for a third position, there were
Spencer only three.
Spencer
Theodore == Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theodore Dave, Your proposal presuppose an assumption that the
Theodore best use of our AD resource is as procedural and process
Theodore assistant. Certainly we don't select for that in our
Theodore current nomcom process ---
Hi. The BOF jabber rooms seem not to exist yet.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian I'm replying to John's note rather than somewhere in the
Brian by the NomCom to expect a half time job. Well, it's a half
Brian time job that includes managing 10 WGs on average and
Brian reviewing 400 to 500 documents a
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John --On Wednesday, 20 July, 2005 07:03 -0400 Sam Hartman
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last
call. I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last call.
I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review gaining a last call is all that benefical.
It's not clear how you would interpret the results or what the
success/failure criteria is. I think interpreting IESG
Jeffrey == Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeffrey On Thursday, July 14, 2005 08:50:16 PM -0700
Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone want to bet on Minneapolis - Its March after all.
Jeffrey Sounds good to me.
Me too.
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We propose that, for an initial period of 6 months, a member of
the community will be added to regular IESG meetings as a
recording secretary who will write narrative minutes
would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to always last
call IETF review documents? Personally I'd approve of this option
unless people think it is too restrictive.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Steve == Steve Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Perhaps requiring less effort and being just as useful
Steve would be having volunteers dictate the written narrative
Steve minutes and make them available as OGG or MP3?
I don't think this would be just as useful. I think
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spencer - It is probably helpful to include a reference to a
Spencer - One point I took away from the recent chat about IANA
Spencer registration on this list is that a substantial portion
Spencer of the community thinks that
Scott == Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Scott I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by
Scott the IESG it should reduce the number of what appears to be
Scott blocking actions by ADs
Scott but I did not see
Hi. I have attempted to review this draft. I do not believe this
document is suitable for publication.
First, the writing quality is a serious obstacle to understanding the
document. Ultimately I'm still not sure what the document was trying
to require.
The document presumes a single model
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Kurt D. Zeilenga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is my recommendation that the mandatory-to-implement
strong authentication mechanism for this protocol be either:
DIGEST-MD5 (with a mandate that implementations support its
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the IESG could abuse its power in the future. For example
if it failed to charter work for one of the previous options in
the presence of significant community support, then the IESG
would be abusing its power. If the
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hans, I think this formulation is consistent with what I,
John and others, have been trying to say. I would, however, add
John one element.
John However, especially since the IETF maintains liaisons with
John at least a
Hi. The last call period on your draft has expired. As you are no
doubt aware there was a significant discussion of the suitability of
rc4 for use as a standards-track ssh cipher .
The community consensus supports publishing this draft on the
standards track. However we need to clearly
John, as I understand it, the IESG believed it was turning down this
specific request. The IESG believes this option will never be
assigned through the IESG review process. I don't think the IESG did
turn down the option of IETF consensus nor the option of standards
action. I do not believe the
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Scott, I'll leave it to you, Ted, and your IESG colleagues
John to figure out what priority this has, but it seems to me
John that this topic is, at some point, worth some serious
John discussion. If the security community
Pekka is correct: a null IANA section is required for internet drafts.
It is stripped in the RFC process.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi. I'm not in a good position to write a long response now; let me
know if you do end up wanting a longer response and you'll get it in a
week or so.
I don't think cram-md5 is a reasonable best current practice. I think
it is accurate to describe it as a common practice.
It's my
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Sam,
First, in section 5, please do not list cram-md5 as a secure
authentication technology. Today I think we'd require a
security layer from a SASL mechanism to consider it secure.
Also cram-md5 suffers from other
The implementation report seems rather old and seems focused on the
existing document not on the draft actually being advanced. Can we
get people submitting entries for the implementation report to confirm
that they have been following the draft and believe their
implementations still comply
First, in section 5, please do not list cram-md5 as a secure
authentication technology. Today I think we'd require a security
layer from a SASL mechanism to consider it secure. Also cram-md5
suffers from other defects.
Also, I'm a bit concerned about the following requirement:
o Mail
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment recommending
that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather
than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4. It would be
inappropriate to make a decision based on one comment so I am
soliciting comments on this
Keith == Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu writes:
The argument in favor of publishing this document at proposed
is that the existing arcfour cipher is part of a standard and
that many other IETF protocols use rc4 in standards track
documents.
Keith previous mistakes are not
Steven == Steven M Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steven --- Forwarded Message
Steven In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Hartman
Steven writes:
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment
recommending that the new rc4 cipher for ssh
Steve == Steve Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Well, I'm probably living in a very old universe, which may
Steve be out of date. What numbers are more appropriate?
I'd think two months would be doing good for IESG processing. That
includes AD review, IETf last call, telechat
Steve == Steve Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Sam, Thanks. The IETF last call and scheduling of
Steve telechats are visible and understandable. What's the
Steve figure for time for AD review?
I'm not the best person to ask; my sample set is small.
It depends a lot on a
Steve == Steve Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Sam, Thanks. The IETF last call and scheduling of
Steve telechats are visible and understandable. What's the
Steve figure for time for AD review?
I'm not the best person to ask; my sample set is small.
It depends a lot on a
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Thomas,
1) produce a document. 2) get a small number of quality
reviews. 3) revise in response to those reviews 4) ensure that
reviewers in step 2 are satisfied by the revision. 5) Repeat
steps 1-3 with a _different_
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
Brian RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe
Brian that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates
Brian would *not* volunteer if they
Tom == Tom Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Wouldn't a system of mutual endorsements (a web of trust),
Tom suitably loudly broadcast, be an alternative to elaborate
Tom committee procedures?
Yes, but it would not really be the IETF.
Note well that I'm not making any judgment of
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spencer - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow posting
Spencer by non-members
That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam
policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF
working
Tom == Tom Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom All I mean is that, for higher level protocols, letting
Tom people do what they will (the market decides) seems to me
Tom to be the best option. Yes, using your example, IM protocols
Tom fragment, interop suffers, there's lots of
Jeffrey == Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeffrey On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch
Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference
between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the
difference between the two. IMO, they
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their
Dave concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification
The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach: the
proto shepherd is ultimately responsible
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Sam, 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of
Dave their concern to the mailing list targeted to that
Dave specification
The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach:
the proto shepherd is
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe than technical review).
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think
Keith == Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu writes:
I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs,
i.e., to move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let
the ADs distrbute the reviews and collect and interpret the
results.
I would agree on one point.
You may certainly quote parts of a draft in a draft you are writing.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did not find claims that specific IESG members had used the
discuss power to advance personal agendas.
I may have missed the specifics.
Dave Well, no, you probably did not miss the specifics that you
Dave are looking
Jeffrey == Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeffrey On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 04:21:21 PM -0400 John C
Jeffrey Klensin
Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, the IESG job has become so burdensome in part because of
decisions by the IESG about how much work
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Organizations rarely improve by having vague comments about
abuse of power tossed around. If you are looking to improve
the process I suggest that you raise specific objections to
specific actions.
Dave Sam,
Dave 1.
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Brian,
Er, yes, I think it's known as collective responsibility in
some circles.
Dave When it is used well, yes.
Dave When it is used to reflect the personal preferences of the
Dave AD -- no matter the history of the
Keith == Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu writes:
Keith You seem to think that the IETF isn't accountable because
Keith they make decisions that you don't like. I assure you from
Keith having been there that there is significant pushback
Keith against IESG people who do things that
Pekka == Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pekka On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
Personally, I'm more in favor of votes than just hums, the
reason being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In
contrast, the results of a hum are more subject to
Jaap == Jaap Akkerhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jaap I'm amazed about what non-issues are raised everytime the
Jaap IETF is not meeting in the USA.
I think there is some bias on both sides. The US folks would love to
show that either the rest of the world is as bad as the US or
Bill == Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill has what claims to be a summary. There appears to be a
Bill personal use exemption of some sort but there's no mention
Bill of re-export of the laptop you imported when you entered the
Bill country..
Same deal with the US.
Sam == Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill == Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sam For many programs, it seems like 15 CFR 740.15 (e) or 15 CFR
Sam 740.17 will allow re-export. I'm not a lawyer; I just had to
Sam argue too much about this stuff with lawyers.
OK, I
will require some IETF action, it is not
yet a crisis.
That is, we can walk to a solution, there is no need to run.
If you are interested in this topic, please join the SAAG discussion on
Thursday.
IETF Security Area Directors,
Russ Housley
Sam Hartman
---End Message
Frank == Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Bill Fenner wrote:
I'm looking for more complete review.
Frank It would be nice if an author could simply submit a draft
Frank with a creative commons share alike license, and that's
Frank replaced by any necessary
I think your draft could benefit significantly from some example usage
sections describing how this currency can be used in practice today.
If it can't yet be used then I'd describe the minimal set of missing
features and describe how a system with those features could be used.
I found the
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald I do not think that the ISOC BoT would be constrained to
Harald providing advice in the situation you describe. It would,
Harald however, have to say this is an actiobn we take because
Harald we have a
Nathaniel == Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathaniel On Jan 29, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Q: Is there a list of changes from RFC 2476? [As the request is
to advance to Draft status, it would be nice to know if any
changes are of such scope and
Tom == Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Is this even Standards track? I don't know:-(
It's my understanding that with the exception of widely deployed URIs
documented for informational purpose, both the old and new URI
registration guidelines encourage standards-track URIs.
--Sam
Jefsey, you paint an interesting picture of an alternate universe. As
part of painting that picture, you do describe some properties our
users would like to have.
However these are not the only priorities. I don't think you discuss
anything new; I think the goals you considered were also
JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JFC Dear James, A Registry can certainly take care of SLD, not of
JFC lower levels. IMHO the problem is no more with IDNs (no one
JFC want to change RFC 3490!), but to avoid to propagate the
JFC problem into the IRI.
Handling
Jefsey, you are proposing involving the regional and local chapters in
the standards process.
That's a major shift both for the ISOC and for the IETF. It's also
inconsistent as far as I can tell with what other organizations like
IEEE that have both chapters and standards-related activities do.
Tony == Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tony and now the replacement ULA space is unable to be published
Tony as it is dragging out in an interminable discuss state.
I see no discusses on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr. I have not
been following the document though since I
Bob, I appreciate your interest in working with the IETF to establish
the IASA. I also appreciate your interest in improving the BCP.
I have been disappointed that you have been sending revised comments
on the IPR issue over the last two weeks. However you have not been
engaging in a discussion
Hi, Bob. It was pointed out to me privately that my message could be
misinterpreted and that it might come across as if I'm not interested
in listening to and evaluating proposals for change. That's certainly
not my intent so let me take a step back and explain what I was trying
to do.
I
JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JFC 2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no
JFC indication about relations with ISOC local chapters. For
JFC organizing local IETF lists, assisting with IETF meetings,
JFC documenting specific local issues
I support this text. I prefer the last paragraph be present but this
is not a strong preference.
I'd like to find some way to make it clear to the community that other
forms of comments are appropriate but am happy to agree with Leslie
that the BCP is not the place for that.
I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's text with
Leslie's proposed changes. It's actually very close to something I
would be happy with.
I've been rethinking my position since yesterday. I realized that
most of what I want does not require formalism or requires very little
I don't think I can support your proposed text. I still don't
understand what your proposed section 3.5 does and don't think I could
go along with the plausable readings I'm coming up with for that text.
I don't think your text does a good job of meeting the principles
Margaret tried to outline;
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion
in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or
are we all just unsure what to say about it?
--Sam
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed
discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me
try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue
Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leslie Sam,
Leslie Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion
Leslie that lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying
Leslie what I intend as a distinction between them.
Leslie As I understood them,
Eric == Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com writes:
Eric bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
Eric 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
Eric usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
Eric processes were not followed. Those
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, failure to take adequate comments before making a
decision seems like a reasonable justification from my
standpoint for reviewing that decision. Depending on the
consequences of doing so it may even be appropriate to
I agree with Margaret's general principles with a few comments.
(4) is desirable to me but not critical.
I am ambivalent on (6); I don't think it is particularly problematic
but do not think it is required. I understand others disagree with me
strongly on this point.
The rest of the principles
Our processes have tended to always have review as the first step in
an appeal. I believe that is important.
Margaret's principle (5) which I agree with is consistent with your
definition of appeal although I'm not sure I would use that word.
___
Scott == Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to
Scott appeal/review awards if they can not be overturned -
Scott apealing or reviewing the process that was followed is fine
Scott but appealling the actual award seems
Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leslie 3.5 Business Decisions
Leslie Decisions made by the IAD in the course of carrying out
Leslie IASA business activities are subject to review by the
Leslie IAOC.
Leslie The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly
Scott == Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott I agree that postmortems can be useful but I'm not sure
Scott that doing such on a decision to hire Bill instead of Fred
Scott is one of those cases where it woudl be useful, feasiable
Scott (due to confidential info
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Where I, and some others, have tried to go in the interest
John of finding a position that everyone can live with is well
John short of what I (and I think you) would like. I suspect we
John may still end up pretty close to
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John --On Sunday, 23 January, 2005 14:20 -0500 Michael StJohns
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who gets to kick this process into starting (e.g. who gets
to file a complaint)?
Anyone, but only the IAB or IESG can
I'm still concerned with not having the ability to sublicense rights
we have under this section.
The last time I discussed this issue Harald pointed out that I was
asking for more rights than we had under 3667.
However I have sense been convinced that 3667 is broken.
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a
Brian grievance that is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer
Brian to make a complaint, no words in an RFC will stop them. But
Brian the right words in an RFC
I prefer Margaret's wording but could live with Harld's wording.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John --On Monday, January 17, 2005 2:34 PM +0100 Harald Tveit
John Alvestrand
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... The one thing that I agree sticks out is that the language
of 3777 talks about firing *one* person - in the
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John How the text should be fixed depends a bit on what we do
John about that outsourcing assumption, to which I continue to
John object. If we can lose it, the paragraph might end up
John reading something like:
John
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Avri said
I think creating the procedure to avoid so called 'DOS attacks'
is, in effect, fighting a problem we do not have.
Brian But we do not have a body responsible to the IETF community
Brian today that awards
Vernon == Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vernon If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow
Vernon the IETF's processes, they would have taken one of the
Vernon suggestions for the next step and temporarily (or
Vernon permanently) retired from the field.
Vernon == Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, currently this
draft is in Ted's hands. It makes no sense for people to
withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all.
Vernon That's fine, but does suggest some questions
Tom == Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom I believe any individual submission should have a publicly
Tom identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed
Tom in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues,
Tom hopefully resolve them, before last call.
I
601 - 700 of 746 matches
Mail list logo
