I agree with John K
lets purge 2418, 3683 etc of any language that appears to limit
enforcement options and work things out on a case by case basis
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
see RFC 3563 for one agreement
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
to expand on John's ps
for those of you who were not involved or who have forgotten the details
the note the IESG sent about their review of the ISD idea can be found at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/msg01076.html
but the feeling that the WG got from the IESG review is better
(1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse available
to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask Andrew to
reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The former
has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced.
we
PS - I do think its fully in Andrew's remit to make this decisison
and I do not think it would be good for the IETF for anyone to
appeal his decision
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
this summary is right on
E.g. the IAB should keep its hands off the independent submission
process at least with this channel
so is the rest of Mike's message
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
the level of independence and discretion granted to the RFC
Editor to edit and publish documents that are not the outcome of the
IETF's peer review process is, I believe, a central matter in any
version of an RFC Editor Charter.
how could be any other way?
Scott
Jason had the chair ask how many folks in the room were in the Default
Free Zone, and 20 people raised their hands. So from that I conclude at
the very least that 14 of those 20 did not oppose the PI proposal.
its a bit harder to say than that - the 2nd question (how many from
default free
Michel sed
breaking news
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the
ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has reviewed
policy proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and
utilisation requirement and has determined that there is
now is the time to comment if you want to - a lack of comment means
agreement
from ARIN Member Services
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has reviewed Policy
Proposal
maybe I can summerize John's note by asking if this IAB has the
will to write a RFC 1984 about net neutrality
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think that was your point Scott?
I just wanted to be sure the list of RFC types was complete
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think they are independent submissions (not generally written by
teh RFC Editor staff)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The other publication tracks in the above is meant to be
for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, whatever comes next.
and 1 april RFCs?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave sed:
Nroff has no current industry penetration.
fwiw - Nroff is on every Mac OSX shipped
it is a shell procedure that fronts groff
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Brian sed
It's traditional, and I think fair.
fwiw - it took a bit of adjusting when the ISOC logo was 1st put on
the home page (as I recall) - I also think its fine but should be
about the same scale as the ISOC one
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Sam sez:
It's certainly current IESG procedure that we can last call
informationals and experimentals. I don't know that 2026 does or
needs to say anything about it. Unless it is forbidden it seems like
a reasonable decision making tool for the IESG to apply in some cases.
imo - its quite
I think that further tweaking with this document is not going to
make it much better I think its more than good enough now - so lets
sign it and get it behind us
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I would like to extend the Consensus Call on the IETF Trust for one
additional week until December 2nd.
fwiw - I think that the IPR trust is basically the right path to take
considering the circumstances but I would like to see answers to
John's issues before proceeding and join John in
Noel sez:
If some WSIS-blessed
bureacracy decides to make IP addresses portable (like phone numbers in a
number of jurisdictions),
fyi/a - an example of this thinking can be found in the aug 7 1997
amendment to the ARIN articles of incorporation - put there under the
insistance of part of
One David opines
- we need two more people out of the community who are going to spend
a lot of their time on the administrative side of our organization
instead of producing real work for the IETF.
ADs do not have to stop doing useful work - many ADs (and even a
chair
or two) have done
In which case, what you last call is not the document itself but
what the IETF intends to say about it, and do about the related
IANA action.
just so
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I was surprised that TCP-over-IPv6 and UDP-over-IPv6 didn't increase
the port number space. I know it's off-topic here, but anyone know why
they didn't? It surely must have been considered.
That was considered to be part of TCPng, and as best I recall was
explicitly out of scope.
imo this update is much needed - there has been considerable confusion
about some of the processes in RFC 2434 and it would be good to
clear up the confusion
one specific area of confusion was what used to be called IETF
Consensus - renaming it to IETF Review may help but I'm not sure
I think
works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents when you
say IETF review documents)
Scott
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 14 18:12:46 2005
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D
Sam asks:
how about just waiting to see if we have a problem before designing
new process?
we have running code that there have been problems in the past
maybe this new process will help avoid some of them maybe the IESG will
be more ready to push back on ADs that do not follow these much
re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by the IESG it
should reduce the number of what appears to be blocking actions
by ADs
but I did not see any enforcement mechanism - i.e. if an AD enters a
DISCUSS over a section 3.2 reason how does the
Yakov asks:
What was the reason(s) the request was made for an assignment
that required IESG Approval, rather than either Specification
Required or First Come First Serve ?
it semed to be the right thing at the time
it seemed to be too lose to have the IETF out of the loop
when changing one
Margaret sed:
Personally, I think that if the IETF doesn't want to give the IESG
the right to approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP
options, then the IETF should update RFC 2780.
for what it's worth (speaking as an IETFer, forment IESGer co-author of
RFC2780) - to me its
I agree that this would be a reasonable process, but wouldn't that be
IETF Consensus (an entirely separate choice in RFC 2434 from IESG
Approval)?
see RFC 2434
IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are
It's not a hard concept. It just isn't mentioned or implied in RFC 2780.
neither is not drinking gasoline but I trust that will not change
your desire to not do so
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I don't see that text either. I suspect it was omitted because
of the possibility of denial of service attacks on getting
standards out (Scott Bradner, a comment on this might be
helpful).
I do not recall any discussion on this particular question but tere
was a general assumption
I am looking for Internet Experimental Notes 127, 117 and 93. Any idea where
these can be found.
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/ien/ien127.txt
for example
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ps - you will also find those IENs under RFC # 762, 758 and 755
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I use nroff
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings,
but we do not count hands - we look to see if there is a clear
difference between hands one way and or the other
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At this point, less than one week before the meeting, only 14 WGs
(not counting BOFs) have agendas posted.
humm - maybe there is another explanation for part of that
I sent an agenda (including ID names) in almost a month ago but its not
on the WG BOF agenda page
forwarded
Harld admits and thinks:
I'm sure Jorge could phrase it better. but I think the meaning
is clear.
works for me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Harald asks:
is using
the term 5/8 of the voting members an acceptable phrase?
it's just what I was asking for (i.e, to answer your question - yes)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Harald suggests
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
that position at any time by a vote of five of the IAOC voting members.
I don't think its a good idea to use absolute numbers - its better
to use fractions '4/5ths of the voting members' for example - in
not a showstopper but it woudl eb good to be clear
the text curently says:
Subject to paragraph 2 of Section 4.1, appointed members of the IAOC
serve two year terms. IAOC terms normally end at the first IETF
meeting of a year, just as as IAB and IESG terms do.
I suggest changing this
I have left the change to General Ledger Accounts out for the
time being, because I am not sure we have consensus on that yet
(even though ISOC prefers that terminology).
I would think it is a generally good idea to use the legal terms to
reduce confusion so I see no justification to not use
Bert suggests:
section title=Cost Center Accounting anchor=cc-accounting
t
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
be accounted for in a separate set of general ledger
accounts within the Cost
Bert resuggests:
5.1 Cost Center Accounting
Funds managed by the IASA shall be accounted for in a separate set of
general ledger accounts within the IASA Cost Center. In the remainder
of this document, these general ledger accounts are termed IASA
accounts. A periodic summary of
Harald sez:
- We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could
help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going
straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would.
is there any particular consensus determination mechanism
Harald mentions in passing:
for instance, the transition team has
briefly considered the option of making permanent institutional memory in
the form of archives a separate task that is carried out outside the
present secretariat framework - since Carl's reports indicate that this
Harald quotes John and says
Or, more generally, if the IAD is expected to act merely as a
conduit for information between the IETF leadership and
Neustar/Foretec, is the job description correct (at least for
the duration of the Neustar arrangement) and does the job really
require a
Russ sez:
We want to keep it simple. However, a recall is serious. At a minimum, we
need to require that 2/3rd of the voters are present for the vote. If we
say that at least 2/3rd of those present must vote for removal, then an
'abstain' is essentially a vote to keep the chair in
All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
the prepare for RFPs seems futile (or at least *very* premature)
if NeuStar is to get a N-year
Harald suggests teh following
The IAD negotiates service contracts, with input, as appropriate,
from other bodies, including legal advice, and with review, as
appropriate, by the IAOC. The
IAOC should establish guidelines for what level of review is expected
based on contract
Harald suggests
The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for
legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately,
and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation.
Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out
talking about
I prefer NEW(2)
Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
direction of the IAOC. A committee of the IAOC is responsible for
hiring and firing of the IAD, for reviewing the performance and for
setting the compensation of the IAD. The members of this committee are
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 23 15:17:14 2005
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED
Brian clarifies:
Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards isn't, IMHO,
which is all I intended my words to exclude.
I agree with Brian - allowing the review of specific awards could
easily cause the DoS attack that I've been warning against
Scott
Margaret sez:
None of the versions of the text that we are looking at (the current
BCP, Harald's, mine, Scott Brim's...) indicate that a request for
review of an IAD or IAOC decision could result in: (1) reversing a
...
if all of the proposed text actually said (as the -04 text does)
ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to appeal/review
awards if they can not be overturned - apealing or reviewing
the process that was followed is fine but appealling the actual
award seems broken
this may seem like a wording nit but I think it would properly set
expectations
Harald suggests:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate.
looks good to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Harald points out and suggests
The question was what the purpose of the last line was.
The discussion seems to have revealed that this is good business practice
(don't accept gifts of white elephants), and there's no real need to change
the text.
agree (he says agreeing to his own
I agree with Harald - lets leave it as-is
Margaret wrote:
8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient
s/shall ensure/shall attempt to ensure/ ??
reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of
unexpected events such as income shortfalls.
I think
Harald suggests
To the extent allowed by law, any balance in the IASA accounts, any
IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and
tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms shall be
negotiated between the IETF and ISOC.
works for me
Scott
Harald suggests:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that
Margaret notes
It seems strange, IMO, to be so worried about DoS attacks through the
appeal process we've been using this process for several years for
IESG and WG decisions and haven't experienced that sort of problem...
the current appeals process does not apply to commercial decisions
Harald explains
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
---
why not make public all requests (i.e. remove Answered from the
last line)
because:
1) some requests are an embarassment to the sender, and
Harald asks:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational
after this document has been approved by the process defined in
BCP 9 [RFC2026] , including its acceptance as an IETF
harald suggets
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC may decide by voting.
looks good to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Bert sez:
NEW:
t
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC decides by voting.
/t
I thought the other point was that the text
Margaret asks
ISSUE #5:
6. There shall be a detailed public accounting to separately
identify all funds available to and all expenditures relating to
the IETF and to the IASA, including any donations, of funds or
in-kind, received by ISOC for IETF-related
John K sez:
Proposed change: Get rid of unanimous (both times), replacing
it with consensus and appropriate editorial smoothing.
I fully agree
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
So - Scott, can you confirm that you think quorum rules should be in the
BCP? Rob, can you confirm that you think they should not be?
imo - if rules for voting are in the document then quorum rules should be
but I'm fine with the idea that the document say
1/ general method is
harald proposes:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to
I think you have to explain more why you are worried before I'm able to
share them.
I have in detail in the past
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-On torsdag, januar 13, 2005 07:20:22 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
So the IAD and IAOC don't have to respond to individual requests for
review unless IAB or IESG make the request on behalf of an individual,
but we all get to see requests and responses and
Harald further suggests:
3.4 IAOC Decision Making
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity
cannot be achieved, some decisions may be made by voting.
The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making
rules, including its rules for quorum, conflict
note that in the resolutions that accepted the IETF process BCPs
(2026 for example) also had text that said that the ISOC aggreed to
undertake the role described in the document for the ISOC
i.e. I would expect that both would be in a single motion
Scott
harald asks
We have to adjust the second sentence (referring to such contracts would
become ambiguous), so the total paragraph becomes:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
in-house should be explicitly justified by
haralald's Suggested revision:
All IAOC decisions shall be recorded in IAOC minutes, and IAOC
minutes shall be published regularly.
looks fine to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Harald suggets:
so I'll switch to proposing
that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns
at the end of section 4.0:
-
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as
Specific suggestion for text changes from harald
Reserves
Section 2.2 bullet 7, current:
8. The IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover
normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with
prudent
Jonne asks:
would
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the
IOAC.
do the trick then?
works for me
bert asks:
The current text in section 3, 1st para states
The IAOC consists of volunteers,
does that not say enough?
I'd say no - volunteers can get paid in some cases
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Glen rants:
Are you then claiming that there is _nowhere_ in France that a) is
capable of hosting a meeting with the IETF's requirements and b) the
weather is more pleasant? =20
how about Paris?
http://www.paris.org/Accueil/Climate/gifs/paris.climate.temp.html
seems like the news story
brian asks
Perhaps we do indeed need to explicitly limit the
IAOC Chair to chairing the IAOC. But we almost do - the following paragraph
says:
The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
activities and meetings of the IAOC. The IAOC Chair has no formal
duty
Personally, I don't understand why we would have a different
reimbursement policy for IAOC members than for IESG and IAB members.
just being willing to pay travel expenses might make it possible for
someone to be able to do the IAOC job (since I think it can be done
in non-day-job time) -
just being willing to pay travel expenses might make it possible for
someone to be able to do the IAOC job (since I think it can be done
in non-day-job time) - that is not the case for IAB or IESG members
To be honest, I don't quite follow this logic. What would be the major
difference
However, people from outside US have to pay
for the long distance fee to call those numbers.
the services that teh IESG used when I was an AD called out to non-US
folk (or to folk that were in those %%(*$%$ hotels that charge
per minute for toll free calls longer than some time)
Scott
thanks to Jonne for bringing this up - I agree that some text about this
should be in the document but I disagree on what it should say.
imo - the IAOC members should not be compensated for their time but
I think its reasonable for them to be reimbursed for expenses for
travel to meetings not
I admit that I maybe have too much a view point of someone working for a
relatively large company.
not everyone does
I try to approach this from a position where
the IAOC itself does not become a significant cost for IASA.
I agree - see my note - I do not think that face to face meetings
please do not read more into what I said than I said - I *only* meant
what I said - nothing more (I have a hard time understanding how anyone
could have misread what I said)
I did not suggest any change to the non-reimbursment of IESG IAB
expanses - nor did I intend to
I expect the job of being
accounting transparency is mentioned in a number of places already
it seems overly redundent to mention it here yet again - but its not
a big deal to me
Scott
-
Kurtis comments on text suggested by Bernard:
On 2004-12-09, at 17.02, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Suggest this be rewritten to:
Harald concludes:
I believe that these are valid reasons to keep the mention of the
outsourcing principle in section 3, so I suggest we close #723 with no
changes needed.
I agree
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
clearly fund raising expenses must be accounted for but, imo,
there is nothing special about fund raising expenses - there will
also be other overhead costs that will have to be seen as being in the
IASA budget (Bert mentions credit card fees, there is also office space,
legal support for
Bert sez:
As a result of the discussion I have updated the text
and it currently looks as follows in my edit buffer:
section title=IASA Budget Process anchor=iasa-budget-process
t
While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's
Bert quotes lynn and then says
Maybe replace the last two sentences with some variation of Access
to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC
approval processes for any budget overruns.
I believe that the current text was quite extensively discussed in the
past.
I like John's formulation reason
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
in-house should be explicitly justified by the IAOC
and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these
Scoot, I believe that we have also resolved that issue
implicitly by resolving issue749. Do you agree?
not being someone who memorizes issue numbers I had to look these up
but I think you are correct
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
works for me
---
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 22 04:42:35 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:20:15 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.5 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
OK by me
---
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 22 05:00:02 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:49:09 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.5 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:
ok
---
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 22 06:47:13 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:11:57 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.5 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:
harald suggest:
If there is no IAD or the IAD is unavailable, the IAOC may temporarily
assign the IAD's duties to individual members of the IAOC.
looks good
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
harald asks
My reading of the discussion is that there is no support for making such a
requirement (too many corner cases with absent members), and that writing
detailed rules on IAOC decision making into the BCP is a Bad Idea.
However, the idea of IAOC *having* such decision rules seems
1 - 100 of 299 matches
Mail list logo
