The DT I am discussing has no clear problem to solve, the appointment is
not clear, I have been asking for a WG but only DT was done. The DT has no
milestones and no clear objectives, is it a DT or a WG. We don't need the
DT to adopt or agree on any real draft effort submitted, it is the
community
Abdussalam Baryun said:
I am part of the community design team as well because
I participate with community more than the private hidden
groups. I think that the draft is a true work open to IETF. I
still did not get a reply to my request to know what is the
DT authority, very strange name
On Oct 12, 2013 6:51 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I don't understand your assertion that there is no procedure in the IETF
to
support the existence of a Design Team.
I'd be sorry to see this discussion dragged down a procedural rathole.
Melinda
Hi,
I'm part of the design team. SM has written this document to begin a discussion
with the broader IETF.
The document does not have the consensus of the design team, and it is
therefore obviously not a recommendation by the design team.
Lars
On Oct 10, 2013, at 20:10, S Moonesamy
I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with
community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a
true work open to IETF. I still did not get a reply to my request to know
what is the DT authority, very strange name without any procedure in IETF,
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 10:41, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with
community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a
true work open to IETF.
I haven't said that anything to the
I am part of the community design team as well
... as being the coauthor of a MANET RFC!
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 14:43, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I do have a question for Lars though. What are your opinions on this? (You
said that there is no consensus, but I'd like to hear also your thoughts.)
so one key question is what influence the IETF actually has on an ISOC
we need to keep the flexibility of bringing in someone new
agree
But my main issue is that the draft sounds like its trying to take over and
redefine an ISOC program, which I don't think the IETF can or should do. The
ISOC program has a purpose, a history and at least from my perspective
I did not like the change of the title which was suggested in diversity
list. the first title was related to IETF, because we need to attract more
other regions in IETF or to facilitate the improve of other region's
participation. The draft's solution was to recommend fellowship (should not
be the
10 matches
Mail list logo
