Re: [ietf-privacy] Deletion request a couple of months ago

able folks to join a standards effort which has already begun but not completed, which also requires access to the archives of conversations. best regards, Ted Hardie (Not speaking on behalf of anyone else) On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:21 PM wrote: > Hello, > > I'm sorry, I couldn't find t

Re: [ietf-privacy] New Webiquette RFC

is in part because that relevant part of the IETF (the User Services Area) had also wound down. Given the decisions above, it would be difficult to identify a group within the IETF that could review an update to RFC 1855. regards, Ted Hardie > On 17.04.22 22:12, Stephen Farrell wrote: &

IESG appointment to the IETF LLC Board

of the appointment, and the IESG requested that I manage the discussion and vote for the position. I am pleased to report that the IESG has appointed the IETF Chair, Alissa Cooper, as a member of the IETF LLC Board. Thanks to Alissa for this additional service to the community. regards, Ted Hardie for the IESG

IAB statement on identifiers and Unicode

he relevant IANA registry to examine the Unicode versions which have been published in the intervening time.  Our reasoning for this is set forth in the statement, and we look forward to discussing it with the community at IETF 101. regards, Ted Hardie for the IAB

Re: [ietf-privacy] Fwd: [Internet Policy] How a Radio Shack Robbery Could Spur a New Era in Digital Privacy

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:41 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article <396e100a-55ba-4155-a29e-92d452a45...@gmail.com> you write: > >Interesting article, cross-posted from ISOC Public Policy list > > Carpenter is an interesting case, but it has nothing to do with the > Internet. > >

Appointment to the Internet Society Board of Trustees

general meeting in June. The IAB had a very strong set of candidates this year, and we would like to express our appreciation to each of them for their willingness to serve. We look forward to their continued engagement with the Internet Society and the IETF. Ted Hardie & Suzanne Woolf Selec

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

A small comment in-line. On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 10/7/2013 10:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: The abstract says: The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through a consensus process, taking into account the different views

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/10/2013 08:03, Ted Hardie wrote: ... were. On the second point, the truth is that informational RFCs are [not] treated as actual requests for comments much any more, but are taken as fixed

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: So I'd like to dispute Ted's point that by publishing a version of resnick-on-consensus as an RFC, we will engrave its contents in stone.

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

Some comments in-line. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 10/8/2013 8:36 AM, Ted Hardie wrote: And what are the RFC numbers for the comments? If none, as I suspect, then the comments aren't the same status as the documents--that's fine for RFC 791

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

Area Director to support a forum for that discussion. regards, Ted Hardie On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'On Consensus and Humming in the IETF

Re: Regarding call Chinese names

system (jyutping being more recent). Many names use folk romanizations, rather than following a specific system. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: IETF 87 Technical Plenary Experiment

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: The wiki page uses the phrase WebRTC-compatible browser. For those who know zilch about WebRTC, a list of such browsers would be handy. Also a test page for OPUS, since otherwise people will have exactly

Re: Regarding call Chinese names

is specific to the pinyin romanization is likely enough (since that romanization is based on Mandarin). best regards, Ted Hardie 2013/7/11 Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com Howdy, Thanks for your efforts. I would suggest, however, that you re-title your drafts so that Chinese is restricted

Re: Regarding call Chinese names

on other dialects, in line with their familial pronunciation, would otherwise be treated as not Chinese. regards, Ted Hardie On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all We submitted two drafts to help people here to correctly call chinese people names

Re: [IETF] Content-free Last Call comments

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote: I think Pete is correct, in that the way we do last calls tends to look like voting, which in turn suggests to participants that we're voting. Are there any objections to whatever? is, I think, the real question

Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

to change implementations to match group consensus. That won't last forever, obviously, but we have that now and should continue to take advantage of it while we do. That's my personal take, in any case, as someone who has been actively involved in both efforts. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

to that lure, and I'd personally advise anyone developing for WebRTC to focus on native WebRTC apps. Those will be the ones that wow users and drive us forward. Again, just my personal view, Ted Hardie

Do we have an estimated date for completing the IESG selection process for this year?

, the IAB or the community at large. regards, Ted Hardie

Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know

the two Suresh and I discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that may help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of this need not be quotas. It should be a better environment for all of our volunteers. best regards, Ted Hardie

Re: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know

are constantly looking for new participants and energy, and adding this tool may help match that to the skills of volunteers they don't know. regards, Ted Hardie though. My personal experience in the IETF is that it is really hard to gain some 'popularity' among the members of this variegated

Re: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: Nice post. I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly select people to be involved in a short online meeting to

Re: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know

of line of codes and little more. I believe Suresh is going to propose working on it at the next code sprint, if there is enough support. If you are interested in contributing to that, I'm sure he'd welcome it. regards, Ted Hardie I would also suggest that with the second approach

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

out both case studies and at least a few pointers to the relevant data protection requirements for collecting data deemed to be sensitive. regards, Ted Hardie On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:18 AM, IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org wrote: The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

participation by those with those backgrounds; that can be more important than a strict stack rack among the competent candidates. Just my personal two cents, Ted Hardie

Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

the community's view. The NomCom is the volunteer body charged with testing for that and reacting. Its view, not the incumbents' views, should be the deciding ones. Note: I've served on confirming bodies, but not the NomCom, so I am not speaking from personal experience. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

exactly what it decided the job requirements are. Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this? regards, Ted Hardie

Re: WCIT outcome?

staff for all their advocacy, as well as those IETF participants who were at WCIT with national delegations. It is, of necessity, arduous work, but well worth both the effort and the thanks of our community. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote: Ted Hardie wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote: Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of 'the Internet', and they always will be (even

Re: Running code, take 2

implementations, it might be useful to get that data back. regards, Ted Hardie

draft-farrell-ft-01.txt -- what signal are we attempting to sense?

Reading through Stephen's draft and the discussion to date, I think there is some confusion/disagreement about what it is having an implementation at this stage signals. One way to break up the work of the IETF is: Engineering--making decisions about the trade-offs related to

Re: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt -- what signal are we attempting to sense?

Hi Stephen, Some further comments in-line. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.iewrote: Hi Ted, On 12/05/2012 05:22 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: Reading through Stephen's draft and the discussion to date, I think there is some confusion/disagreement about

Re: Common sense, process, and the nature of change

thinking about that, and I don't have much more to say on it right now. There were a couple of other questions you asked that I answered in-line. On 11/8/2012 2:46 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: snip But really, Ted, where does your idea come from, that the issues with our current operation hang on some

Common sense, process, and the nature of change

it is important to say things out loud, and this may be one of them. If we are considering why change in the IETF increasingly looks like ossification and if we are considering how to fix that, we should keep our mission in mind. My two cents as an individual, Ted Hardie

Re: Common sense, process, and the nature of change

for evaluating process changes. That may help us work out what efforts are worth the time and effort not just for the IETF, but for the Internet. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: Common sense, process, and the nature of change

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote: So, for myself, as the importance of the work an organization does, the maximum I am willing to trust anyone with regard to process issues decreases significantly. This is not a negative statement about any office

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF). That puts the most important information higher up the text and, to my eyes at least, makes it more prominent. My two cents, Ted Hardie === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === Note Well

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

WELL should disagree with the BCP on that point. If this changes, it should change in the BCP first/simultaneously. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: ISOC BOT and Process BCPs

of appeal (someone filing one may raise and issue that the Board didn't consider), but it does mean that there is some context when appeals occur. It may not be strictly required, in other words, but it is a good idea. My two cents, Ted Hardie Scott On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Sam Hartman

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-arch...@w3.org from September 2012)

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote: I couldn't agree more! We've been waiting for four years for the URI working group to get their act together and fix the URL mess. Nothing has happened. We lost patience and are

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-arch...@w3.org from September 2012)

workers what they should do when faced with a URL. Un-marked context shifts are likely, and likely to be bad. Avoiding them by picking a new term is both easy and appropriate. My personal opinion, as always, regards, Ted Hardie

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-arch...@w3.org from September 2012)

really should use different terms and admit to the fork. My personal opinion, as has been noted, regards, Ted Hardie

Re: Antitrust FAQ

to individuals, their sponsors, and to the IETF process. The IETF reminds all IETF participants of their responsibilities so that they can avoid discussions which might be understood to be collusion or otherwise anti-competitive. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: Last Call: draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-04.txt (Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership) to Best Current Practice

. regards, Ted Hardie

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are solicited. On behalf of the IESG, Russ --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site Internet-Drafts

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

true, and if the existing author wants to do that, this policy is not needed at all. The question is who needs to approve a request to remove it if it does not come from the author. Sorry that this was not clear. regards, Ted Hardie -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:46 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream (documents identified as irtf or IAB). b) Relevant AD for WG documents c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put the matter to the IESG. At

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:17 AM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote: One of the ways we deal with SPAM and DOS attacks is to intentionally slow the process. Ted's proposal would be vastly improved with the provision that access, once authenticated, was delayed approximately the same amount of

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

access, but they are not broadcast? regards, Ted Hardie On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough on this topic.  The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions: (1) Rough consensus

Re: Is the IETF aging?

, Engineering, Math or it can be working group leadership or the IETF. But a bigger pool of talent to draw from is a big win for almost any sized field. regards, Ted Hardie

Mailing list for LGBTQ participants in the IETF

For those not aware of it, there is a long-standing mailing list for LGBTQ participants in the IETF: ietf-mo...@lists.pensieve.org (with subscription at ietf-motss-requ...@lists.pensive.org). About the IETF-MOTSS List: - --- -- - This list is for use by members of the

Re: SIDR WG Virtual Interim Meeting, March 24, 2012

meeting. Explanation please? thanks, Ted Hardie On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM, IESG Secretary iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The co-chairs have arranged a virtual meeting for Mar 24, 2012. As per process, an agenda will be announced by one week before the event. This is scheduled

Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue here.  As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: On 12/01/2011 22:07, Ted Hardie wrote: No, I think that premise is mis-stated. Premise 1: There exists equipment that can't handle identical addresses on the interior and exterior interface. Premise 2: it may

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:44 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: Assume that no vendor in its collective right mind would deploy new address translation gear (or firmware) that couldn't cope with having addresses from the same pool on the inside and outside and that we are willing to

Re: [IETF] Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: But (also realistically) a sufficiently large enterprise that uses all of RFC1918 is not going to be sitting behind a CGN... W Big enterprises buy small ones; sometimes at a great rate. Imagine an enterprise that uses

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

Notes below. On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote: ** Daryl, The problem described in the draft is that CPEs use 1918 space *and that many of them can't deal with the fact that there might be addresses on the outside interface that are the same as on

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote: ** I wrote a response to Brian's original statement then deleted it because I assumed others would ignore it as clearly last minute and ill-researched. Apparently, that was wrong. There are enterprises that currently

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one? Because it has become best practice in other SDOs? Because the insurance agent

Re: Grey Beards (was [81all] Quick Meeting Survey)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Elwyn Davies elw...@googlemail.com wrote: Time for the facial hair standard and ensuring that there is a proper three stage progression from provisional salt and pepper to full blown white out. /Elwyn I think you missed Eric's proposal for a one-step Balding

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

I actually have a lot of sympathy with Andrew's formulation, largely because the document wants you to infer something rather than making it explicit. Take this text: 2.1. The First Maturity Level: Proposed Standard The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they remain

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote: On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: The document doesn't actually say out loud there that the requirements for Proposed Standard have been considerably increased by IESG practice over the years, nor does

Re: Who raised the bar? [Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote: On 2011-09-07 00:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2011-09-07 09:35, Ted Hardie wrote: ... My personal opinion for some time has been that we ought to recognize that the previous PS moved into WG draft years ago

Re: [hybi] Last Call: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:47 AM, David Endicott dendic...@gmail.com wrote: ActuallyI wasn't talking about the Host: header - that is totally spoofable...I was concerned about: 1. Browser client resolves example.com via old style DNS to x.x.x.x and fetches HTTP 2. Received HTML starts

Re: Last Call: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

to the new Proposed Standard vision. As a new WG Chair, I plan to push that vision for my own group, and I hope that the IESG will support that effort as this document intends. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org

Re: Last Call: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: I strongly object to this text in Section 5: 2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard document as Proposed

Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy, Integrity, Obscurity

at the start of this thread is a useful, real-world example of how true those conclusions are. The additional complexity of a wiretapping system present in an AXE created security vulnerabilities that simply would not have otherwise been present. regards, Ted Hardie Regards, Ed  J. On Wed, Mar 9

Re: Last Call: draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

Howdy, Some comments in-line. On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: On 21.01.2011 02:13, Ted Hardie wrote: ... But the reality is that the behavior resulting from these URIs is totally non-deterministic and varies from context to context.  In most

Re: Last Call: draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

Howdy, Some further replies in-line. On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: On 21.01.2011 17:57, Ted Hardie wrote: Howdy, ... Reminder: the reason this was written down was so that about:legacy-compat can be specified as XML system identifier

Re: Last Call: draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

should generally be a bit more precise than an organization name. The W3C director or TAG seems more appropriate than just W3C. regards, Ted Hardie On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: At 07:56 14-01-11, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from

Requested follow-up from last night's plenary

Scott, Sam, and Glenn rightly pointed out last night that my comments at the mic were long on rant and short on substance. My apologies to the community for that. I committed to provide more substantive comments; in order to meet the time limits Olaf noted, I have provided a first draft in

Re: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:17 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: snip However, a change to the handling of documents that are candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of the IESG.  In principle, they could announce tomorrow that any document submitted for processing

Re: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)

the community's needs. Just my two cents, regards, Ted -hadriel On Oct 29, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at the root of all this.  One way to draw this is: Issue:  Documents

Re: Alternate entry document model (was: Re: IETF processes (wasRe:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels))

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com wrote: Ironically, the more we emphasize improving the quality of RFCs, the more we reinforce the myth that all RFCs are standards.  I higher percentage of obviously immature, speculative, or even outright garbage

No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)

As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at the root of all this. One way to draw this is: Issue: Documents are too slow in achieving the first rung of the standards process Contributing issues: -WG formation

An elephant in the room (was IETF processes (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels))

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: As a metric, once a working group has decided to issue a new Internet Draft, it takes almost no time to issue it.  Assuming no format hiccups, it's minutes. The reality is that Internet-Drafts have become an archival

Re: WG Review: Keys In DNS (kidns)

Howdy, The charter below has the following text: The group may also create documents that describe how protocol entities can discover and validate these bindings in the execution of specific applications. This work would be done in coordination with the IETF Working Groups responsible for the

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this proposal or dropping it. At least one other proposal was raised.  My reading of this mail list is that the proposal in

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

the correct state with the two documents; it is just more difficult. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

the correct state with the two documents; it is just more difficult. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

Hi Ben, On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote: On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document tipped over the diff line somewhere.  That is, as a set of edits it is now sufficiently

Re: Discussion of draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt

Comments inline, some content snipped. On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On Oct 4, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: While this is true as far as it goes, I'd like to point out a good example of where the common case may be less common than we'd

Re: Discussion of draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: Those are the very people who need to be involved in cleaning up the specification, but (depending on market conditions) they may see it as mostly benefiting their competitors. For protocols where interoperability

Re: Discussion of draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt

Thanks for the comments, some replies inline. On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:39 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Ted, At 16:25 16-09-10, Ted Hardie wrote: The attached draft is part of the discussion Russ started up with draft-housley-two-maturity-levels.  It is compatible with, but does

Discussion of draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt

place here. regards, Ted Hardie -- Forwarded message -- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:00 PM Subject: I-D Action:draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

Re: Discussion of draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin martin.thom...@andrew.com wrote: The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative

Re: Discussion of draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt

Yours, Joel On 9/16/2010 8:53 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin martin.thom...@andrew.com  wrote: The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that rather

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

that a second last call will be necessary as a result. Some further discussion in-line. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Christer Holmberg christer.holmb...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi, The purpose of this e-mail is to address the secdir comments given by Richard Barnes and Ted Hardie. Due to summer

Re: Back to authentication on the IETF network (was: Re: IETF 78: getting to/from/around Maastricht)

basis, the attendees really need to know whether that is because that was the real requirement all along or because the IETF management failed to provide a realistic alternative that met the stated goal. best regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

simply? Are there things it left out? Are there things it should not have included? Would a pointer to the W3C's help? It is actually a collection, found here: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement-2612 regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

of specific data, I think we're in agreement. regards, Ted Hardie Alissa On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, July 05, 2010 11:40 AM -0700 Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: Marshall, On 7/5/2010 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: I assume (for I do

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

is that this requirement from the host be politely declined as contrary to the usual operation of the IETF network. But if it is not going to be declined, then the admission control should not further the ability to associate specific credentials to individuals. Just two cents, Ted Hardie

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

In-line. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Christer Holmberg christer.holmb...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi Ted, I join Richard in believing that this document makes changes beyond that which could be understood as updating the MSRP URI scheme processing. To highlight one particular aspect, RFC 4975

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

mandatory, that requires a change to the fundamental ABNF and text. I also note that the security considerations, in addition to having some fairly disingenuous language about the impact of this change, seems to fail to mention MSRPS URIs and what, if any, impact this would have on them. regards, Ted

Re: Proposed IAOC Administrative Procedures

in this, seems to me to require a higher bar and longer consultation. Just my thoughts on it, obviously, regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

much to attend seems likely to leave a bad taste in the mouth of at least some participants, and that may discourage them from being NomCom volunteers, both now and in the future. We need all the volunteers we can get. Just my two cents, Ted Hardie Personally, I would prefer to stick

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote: ... We need all the volunteers we can get. I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on maximizing the quantity

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote: illness forced them to participate remotely.   I'd personally rather we expand attend to include remote attendance rather than narrow it to exclude folks who

  1   2   3   4   >