is is somewhat irrelevant).
So, all I really need is to disambiguate myself in the IETF context.
This seems simple -- when I arrived here, no-one mistook me for some other
Warren Kumari, so I have stuck with that identifier.
If there was already a Warren Kumari participating I would simply have used my
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael
On Sep 9, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 9/9/13 11:02 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi Peter,
--On September 8, 2013 at 5:19:51 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
But until the MUAs across the board support it out of
On Aug 3, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the end of working days of 5
in each
week).
There are seven days in most weeks, in my experience.
I suggested to Thomas to submit report in end of Friday
I suggest that
On Jul 12, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
I kept my maiden name, too.
And I took my wife's last name when we married.
This caused no end of confusion at the marriage office, with their Borland C
Turbo Vision Text menu system app, with a space for a maiden
On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 7/2/13 6:37 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Do we have any statistics on how many appeals to the IESG fail and how many
succeed?
My quick read of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html:
Accepted: 6
Denied:
Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
wrote:
On 7/3/13 1:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net
wrote:
Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all has appealed
and ask yourself Do I really want to be part
On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:43 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I'm trying to submit and I-D, and I'm not getting the usual
confirmation mail. My mail logs show nothing, no attempts, no
failures. It worked the last time I tried it on Sunday. (Yes,
I gave it a working address.)
Anyone
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:43 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active
participant in ICANN
(chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some more technical
standards where
developed in IETF, and moved forward along
On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be
improved in ICANN. I'd
On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 6/19/2013 11:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of
practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or
management positions are men. Everybody's got good
intentions
[ Not sure if this is adding to the Signal or the Noise on the Discuss list,
but it *will* help bump up my ranking on the Weekly posting summary, which I
use to justify my participation to my management. That's what it's for, isn't
it?!* ]
On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Pete Resnick
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
early days
On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 01/06/2013 15:00, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the
On May 31, 2013, at 10:03 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
because more time in the air means more time without interruption where
drafts can be read before the meeting.
quiet time on a plane can be productive time.
On May 30, 2013, at 8:37 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Thursday, May 30, 2013 15:31 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
The below is not a direct response to John, it is more my
general views on IETF interaction with operators.
So, I've been a long time
On May 31, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get
On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document
development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying
that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice
docs:
http://www.ipbcop.org/ --
On May 30, 2013, at 1:24 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Forwarding a discussion that started offlist for operational
reasons with permission. I've tried to elide some irrelevant
material; I hope that, if Eliot thinks it was relevant after
all, he will add it back in once he
On May 2, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 5182828c.3040...@isdg.net, Hector Santos writes:
Mr. Resnick, for the record, I wasn't upset. Believe it or not, I was
actually applying an suggestion posted last month or so here with the
IETF diversity talks to
On Apr 29, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 2013-04-29, at 16:49, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Stewart == Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com writes:
Stewart Why would you disregard a statistical analysis? That seems
Stewart akin to disregarding
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unclassified Message, but not Humorous
Some participants like to send messages/documents as categoried or
classified, and may include in others uncategorised or unclassified.
That is a reasonable approach in
On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Hi Lloyd,
On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
(i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D
recommending how to write acks, I get acked…)
+1
W
P.S: :-P
Thanks!
On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:22, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get
an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting.
I want my badge on a
, and then make sure IETF 86 - Orlando is chosen
;-)
W
Alexa
On Mar 9, 2013, at 8:16 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Mar 8, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IETF meeting is beginning on Sunday. I'd like to welcome everyone
On Mar 8, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IETF meeting is beginning on Sunday. I'd like to welcome everyone to the
meeting! This blog highlights some of topics that I find most interesting in
the meeting:
'm assuming this is a joke… but my subtlety filters are turned down, so who
knows...
The Internet Draft process of the IETF works so effectively at filtering out
Internet trolls because of the rigor and structure required for a proposal to
be submitted.
W
On Mar 5, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Sam
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon grm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we keep
all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.
On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
Hi there,
So, I have an etiquette question[0].
When a draft comes up for IETF LC, you get the standard:
The IESG has received a request from the Funny Orange Orangutang WG (foo) to
consider the following document: 'Orangutans Considered Harmful
draft-ietf-foo-dangerous-orangutangs-04.txt
The
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 16, 2013, at 2:02 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets -- in
fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can handle
any
On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/13 7:16 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
Microsoft-OS text editors. Seriously. People wanted to be able to
write correct SIP messages using text editors, and there were more
Microsoft users than Linux users on the list.
On Jan 2, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for
_post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal
to connect directly
On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:56 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Why does the mailing list memberships reminder send passwords in the
clear?
Because that's what Mailman does. Send code.
And that's acceptable to the IETF? You're kidding me, right?
I can't speak for the IETF, but I do
On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:57 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
As a small point of procedures, no one is sending an actual signature.
It therefore would provide a modicum of better assurance for signatories to
send the email that declares their signature directly to the ISOC President
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/12 1:21 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Fellow IETF'rs
below is a recall petition that I plan on submitting
On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
Andrew,
On 10/25/12 9:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This is
a straightforward administrative problem. Turning this into an
opportunity to exercise a heavyweight and
On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
ok, i am lost. the draft is only an outline and has zero content? is
it a quiz?
Treat it like that and see if you can give Joel the right answers.
For me: Did it make any difference to you that it was a LIM rather
don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the
first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret
at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
---maf
Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net
On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Henning Schulzrinne henning.schulzri...@fcc.gov
wrote:
We just published an initial architecture and requirements draft on
large-scale performance measurement architectures at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements/
This is
On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Very useful document, certainly worth publishing.
+1
It is one of those documents that needs frequent updates.
+1
RFC 6052, IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators, makes reference to a
predecessor of this document, stating in
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to
subpoenas and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Who cares about that? I think that it is *vital* that we discuss RFC 85 and
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Who cares about
--
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them
together, they make a pretty good raft.
--Anon.
On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:34 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
On May 16, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: John C Klensin [john-i...@jck.com]
Remind me:
Is bold must more or less compelling that underlined must. And
where does uppercase MUST fit in?
I fear the slightly richer publication format will give rise
to a slightly more
On May 10, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/10/12 9:32 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
There has never been a need to actively broadcast these massive amounts
of personally identifiable information (PII), and I haven't seen any
convincing rationale for doing it now.
To be honest, I don't
On May 7, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Hi,
I think what has been lost here is that the delays were not just with my
non-member submission, but also my member address as well. The fact that it
is intermittent makes it all very odd. I still have yet to receive a May 6
8:49PM
On Apr 30, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
My own anecdotes.
Yes, it starts early.
When I was 3 I announced that I was going to be a physicist when I grew up.
WHY?
1 - a physicist has a chair that is on WHEELS, and spins ROUND and ROUND
2 - a physicist has a blackboard
On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
2012/3/14 Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com:
This is really good news for some people, that already have address
conflict within RFC1918 and don't want to get public address space :p
you mean every enterprise on the planet? (or
On Mar 6, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Xavier Marjou wrote:
As a subscriber of the i-d-annou...@ietf.org list, I generally prefer
reading the HTML version of the draft rather than the TXT version.
I thus often need to manually rewrite the TXT link to fetch the HTML
version of the draft. I can not
On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Yup, you are not the only one -- this annoyed me sufficiently that I finally
gave
in and wrote a Chrome extension to do this for me.
Basically it watches the address bard and looks for www.ietf.org/id/foo
and,
depending on the setting in the
On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
If the main problem with leap seconds is their future
unpredictability, isn't there a compromise option between the status
quo and no more leap seconds? Couldn't they come up with a fixed
schedule for leap seconds for many centuries at a time,
On Dec 20, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
I'm kinda surprised the security ADs are OK with this in a brand new
connection-oriented protocol meant to increase security of the network:
S.7:
Caches and routers MUST implement unprotected transport
over TCP using a port,
On Nov 29, 2011, at 5:51 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'The RPKI/Router Protocol'
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-19.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
What you folks are describing is a web page, not really a wiki.
Exactly, and
On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
The flip side of this argument is that it could be viewed as a helpful
guide for the hosts/sponsors at any given venue. (This is the kind of
information you should provide.)
+ lots...
I work for a company that is sponsoring an upcoming
On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 12/2/11 09:59 , Michael Richardson wrote:
Ted, your response does not address what I said at all. Not
one bit. Let's assume that *every* enterprise used every
last address of 172.16/12 (and, for that matter ever bit of
1918 space). That's
On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic!
+1
+lots.
You are telling us that you
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
+1
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's
unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where
you would take that up.
It also hadn't
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:36 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
I had been waiting a while for a quiet moment on the list to express my regret
at the passing of Watersprings - R.I.P.
Well, you will probably be glad to hear that it is in the process of being
resurrected.
It was down to
While it is not perfect, I too support publication...
W
On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:11 PM, David Sinicrope wrote:
I concur with Dave's comment and support publication of the draft.
Dave
On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:06 PM, David Allan I david.i.al...@ericsson.com
wrote:
I think it is unfortunate
On Oct 2, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
Hej Ole,
Do you mean that the majority of IETF is cannabis user?
In that case the IETF should cancel the Taipe meeting because
cannabis is a schedule 2 narcotic in the ROC, and possession
On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
On 2011-09-07 at 20:13:34, Jari Arkko wrote:
RFC publication speed (time from draft-smith-00 to RFC, measured in
millibits/s):
http://www.arkko.com/tools/lifecycle/sizematters.html
This isn't particularly empirical, but it would seem that
On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Geoff Mulligan geoff.i...@mulligan.com writes:
Maybe the majority doesn't care one way or the other - they will just go
wherever the meetings are held in which case:
let's make them easy to get to
cheap
decent food
one roof (with
On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
At 5:24 PM -0400 8/22/11, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday,
On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
-1.
This list complies with RFC 2919, which alleviates the need for the
horrible, unscalable, obsolete, ugly kludge of Subject-line tags.
I suggest that anyone who really, *really* wants them on their copies
of messages arrange to have
Hi all,
I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching
through archives gets no love...
How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF
Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with
something like
[ Top posting - meta comment ]
Every now and then I get a bee in my bonnet and decide to carefully review each
and every draft in LC. I hate to break it to y'all, but many drafts really
poorly written, and, even if you have very broad interests, many of them are
going to be really boring to
Support, A+++, would by from again, etc.
On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i do not care what the draft is called.
i do not care whether it is info, experimental, or an IEN
i do care that is says 6to4 MUST be off by default
Arguing about the label feels like rearranging
I reviewed the document draft-ietf-soc-overload-design in general
and for its operational impact.
Do not be alarmed -- Operations directorate reviews are solicited primarily to
help
the Area Directors improve their efficiency, particularly when preparing for
IESG
telechats, and allowing them
72 matches
Mail list logo
