At 13:47 17-02-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
I did intend to start a small discussion about people trying to
round others up to make endorsements but the intent had more to
do with raising consciousness than about making new rules. Over
Some people might say that it was courageous of you to do
On 2/16/2012 8:49 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Anyway, I take the situation that John's describing as annoying
but not an actual problem - we don't decide by voting.
Right.
And perhaps the focus for this issue should be on the ability of the (relatively
few) folk making decisions to
: SM s...@resistor.net
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules
Hi John,
At 06:04 16-02-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell
On 2/17/12 7:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
And perhaps the focus for this issue should be on the ability of the
(relatively few) folk making decisions to distinguish between
substantive vs. political input, rather than on trying to prevent the
political input.
Getting the folk who evaluate
Randy Bush speaketh:
in reply to: Nick Hilliard
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason
that people are moaning about it so much is that they understand
the concept of address allocation.
exactly. they understand the concept. and, like many things
where the surface
From: Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com
We do need to make sure that the folks evaluating consensus know
that voting doesn't count and that their decisions are made by
consensus on the technical issues, not the number of people speaking.
Yes, but how do you tell where the
On 2/17/2012 9:59 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
(provided, of course, that they are from long-time
IETF partipants).
Noel,
Given that Nomcom membership can be granted to folk who have attended only a few
recent meetings and without any requirement that they know or have done anything
in the
Who gets to decide who the experts are?
i listen the folk actually implementing and actually using. i also
listen to researchers with expertise in the field. the ietf politicians
are already in my ~/.procmailrc. you are welcome to listen to whom you
wish.
Are you telling me, that because I
Randy Bush respondeth...
Who gets to decide who the experts are?
i listen the folk actually implementing and actually using. i also
listen to researchers with expertise in the field. the ietf
politicians
are already in my ~/.procmailrc. you are welcome to listen
to whom you
wish.
On 2/17/12 11:59 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Pete Resnickpresn...@qualcomm.com
We do need to make sure that the folks evaluating consensus know
that voting doesn't count and that their decisions are made by
consensus on the technical issues, not the number of
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:14:18PM -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in
Not to me. I don't see what they add.
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something. It asks whether the WG is solidly behind
something, or whether
On 2/17/12 10:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something. It asks whether the WG is solidly behind
something, or whether there are actually just two or three people
interested and everybody else not paying attention.
On 2/17/12 1:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:14:18PM -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in
Not to me. I don't see what they add.
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something. It
Hi Melinda,
At 12:10 17-02-2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
What is a working group?
It is a group, comprised of technically competent participants,
governed by a charter which:
1. lists relevant administrative information for the group
2. specifies the direction or objectives of the working
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit unnerving.
Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't. When a person's
opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc. are judged exclusively by do I know
this person then you have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
unnerving. Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't.
When a person's
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:23, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
unnerving. Either
--On Friday, February 17, 2012 13:34 -0800 Paul Hoffman
paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that
started this thread.
And I want to repeat, once more, that there was no proposal.
There was an observation about what I consider a problem. That
On 2/17/12 3:34 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
unnerving.
You are assuming that the truth value of statements can be decided by an
impartial, technically-competent observer. In some of the recent discussions,
many of the claims were X is (not) going to do Y in the future or Using X
may cause Y do to something. Unless the observer has a crystal ball,
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from people who
do not routinely participate on IETF lists,
Subject: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at
09:04:03AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin (john-i...@jck.com):
...
first appearance of many no-information I support this
endorsements from people and constituencies who are not regular
participants on the IETF list
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at
09:04:03AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin (john-i...@jck.com):
...
first appearance of many no-information I support this
endorsements from people and constituencies
On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Yes, I see the difficulties in figuring out the details of such
a rule and implementing it and am mostly joking. Mostly.
I support this.
You support the joking?
Or is it that you support vague rules that are unenforceable and will generate
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:04 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
snip
I think that an endorsement like I work for Cisco and we intend to implement
this in every one of our products is useful. But it's not nearly as useful
as this is a terrible idea, and doing this will prevent IPv6 from
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
snip
I think that an endorsement like I work for Cisco and we intend to
implement this in every one of our products is useful. But it's not nearly
as useful as this is
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
When those notes come from people who do not routinely participate on
IETF lists
Well, that's the $64 million question, right? I mean, I don't personally
subscribe to every IETF-related list, so I have no idea if the people who are
posting
For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the +1 fashion
recently are primarily people I've known to be active in the IETF for
years - including some WG chairs.
I don't think this is an effort to round up external voters - but
rather encouragement to others inside IETF to publicly
Hi John,
At 06:04 16-02-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from
On 2/16/12 6:59 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the +1 fashion
recently are primarily people I've known to be active in the IETF for
years - including some WG chairs.
I tend to be involved with different working groups from the ones
John is, and
--On Thursday, February 16, 2012 07:49 -0900 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/16/12 6:59 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the
+1 fashion recently are primarily people I've known to be
active in the IETF for years - including some
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
people who haven't participated and haven't studied the drafts
This isn't exactly about a complicated protocol: it's about whether to assign
an address block or not.
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
In message 9bbaf712-d199-4950-a516-33c830756...@checkpoint.com, Yoav Nir
writes:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger J=F8rgensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
snip
I think that an endorsement like I work for Cisco and we intend to impl=
On 16/02/2012 19:42, Noel Chiappa wrote:
This isn't exactly about a complicated protocol: it's about whether to assign
an address block or not.
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason that people are
moaning about it so much is that they understand the concept of address
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason that people are
moaning about it so much is that they understand the concept of address
allocation.
exactly. they understand the concept. and, like many things where the
surface seems easy, everyone thinks they're an expert.
randy
37 matches
Mail list logo
