Re: Response to appeal [...]

IESG Secretary wrote: > This is a response to that appeal. [...] > The IESG came to consensus that the use of non-example domain > names should not prevent publication of RFC2821bis, even though > the IESG finds this practice can cause harm. Good enough, hopefully the discussed examples are updat

Re: [Geopriv] Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

Ted, Sam, I also agree with your points, and yes, even personnel decisions by AD can be appealed. The appeals process is not intended to merely inspect whether formal right to perform an action existed; such appeals would be very easily decided. In most cases, an appeal involves an action which is

Re: Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

Russ Housley wrote: I'd like to know if this is a topic of concern to people. I had not realized that IESG statements bound future IESGs. I find that in itself disturbing. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/li

Re: Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

At 3:49 PM -0400 9/21/07, Russ Housley wrote: > >>As a concrete suggestion: >> >>"The IESG re-affirms that its reading of RFC 2026 is that any action made by >>an Area >>Director or the IESG may by made the subject of the conflict resolution >>mechanisms >>set out in Section 6.5 of RFC 2026. Th

Re: Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

Ted: To begin with, I want to say that I agree with your perception of the appeal process. It is an important conflict resolution tool. The first thing that was done in the drafting of the appeal response was to list each of the claims in the appeal. That is why the introduction lists them

Re: [Geopriv] Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

At 1:16 PM -0400 9/21/07, Russ Housley wrote: >Ted: > >With great respect, I must disagree. The appeal says: "It is the position of >the appellants that this removal violates the IETF process by which working >groups are governed." This say to me that the appellants believe that Cullen >Jennin

Re: [Geopriv] Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

Ted: With great respect, I must disagree. The appeal says: "It is the position of the appellants that this removal violates the IETF process by which working groups are governed." This say to me that the appellants believe that Cullen Jennings violated IETF process by replacing the GEOPRIV

Re: [Geopriv] Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

Ted, speaking as an individual. I completely agree that personnel decisions of ADs should be able to be appealed. I actually considered proposing text modifications to make it clear that there might be circumstances where it would be appropriate for the IESG to resolve the conflict. I and I s

Re: [Geopriv] Response to appeal dated 22-June-2007

I believe this response (I hope inadvertently) appears to remove a valuable principle by which the IESG acted on appeals. I urge the IESG to reconsider the formulation of its response to the appeal to clarify the issues raised below. At 2:01 PM -0400 9/20/07, The

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

Atompub, Sorry, I guess you're stuck with the complete nonsense in your current draft. Even though RFC2617 is already a draft standard. HTTP-WG, Which mechanism will become required to implement for all HTTP/1.1 implementations? You can't cycle at DS without picking one. IESG, "It means w

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

Julian Reschke wrote: > [snip] > Well, maybe the members of the working group want to consider to have > the protocol published somewhere else (remember there was a big > discussion about W3C vs IETF before this working group was formed?). > -1. At this point switching venues would be positivel

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

Julian Reschke schrieb: ... Sounds good. Any pointers to what's going on there? A good security mechanism implemented both in Apache httpd and Mozilla clearly would be A Good Thing. ... Robert has a summary at . (should have looked at

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

Robert, thanks for following up even though the outcome was as expected. Robert Sayre schrieb: Atompub, Sorry, I guess you're stuck with the complete nonsense in your current draft. Even though RFC2617 is already a draft standard. Well, maybe the members of the working group want to consid

Re: Request to the IAB for clarifiction of its Jan 31 IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Harald, Indeed, the IAB response concludes that the IESG has not given sufficient justification for its decision in Mr. Morfin's appeal, and that decision has been annulled. The IAB's role here is one of review (in the appeal), not directing the actions of IETF process. If you require further

Request to the IAB for clarifiction of its Jan 31 IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Hello, as the person responsible for the mailing list in question on Jefsey Morfin's appeal that the IAB responded to on January 31, I have a question for clarification, which has an immediate effect on what this maintainer will do while this stuff is being processed. Quoting from the IAB re

RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Speaking for myself -- As noted in the appeal

RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500 Bernard,

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from [...]

Dear Frank, RFC 3066 bis is now a local low interest issue, under IESG appeal, mainly for security considerations. IRT your so called debate, I do not think that "leaving the things as they are" is an innovative solution. Now someone has to do the work. jfc At 04:33 01/02/2006, Frank Ellerman

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from [...]

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > I hope this list will soon be a IANA managed mailing list, > or that the IESG requires the WG-ltru to gives it a more > precise status through RFC 3066 bis (a debate I proposed > and I was denied). That's of course not the case, it was debated for quite some time in "

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

I thank the IAB for the processing of my request. I acknowledge its decision. The IAB has decided not to discuss the motives of the contention, but the use of RFC 3934 to legitimate a ban decision (also used in the three other cases). Harald Alvestrand indicated the reasons of this use: if the

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: > Thank you for the processing of this request. > > However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about > what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the > ietf-languages list. > > The IAB seems to have decided that it's

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

IAB, Thank you for the processing of this request. However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the ietf-languages list. The IAB seems to have decided that it's the IESG that has to decide this;

RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin --> --> My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive --> as banning, it is --> very important to have clear, well documented procedures --> dictating the --> process and who is al

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

applicability and overlap of the existing documents is already somewhat unclear. From: Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: IAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Iesg (E-mail)" , ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Sam, One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not BCP upon BCP upon BCP. The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented on published operational procedures should not be at odds with our general or specific process documents, or else that seems to suggest the pr

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Leslie> The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community Leslie> commented on published operational procedures should not Leslie> be at odds with our general or specific process documents, Leslie> or else that seem

Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

So, a clarification request: Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John Klensin has made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are better handled by operational procedures made available for com

IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

On 4 January 2006, the IAB received an appeal from Jefsey Morfin appealing the IESG decision to uphold the suspension of his posting rights to the ietf-languages list. According to the procedures in Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026, the IAB has reviewed the situation and issues the following response.