+4 and rotfl
Brian
On 2011-09-16 17:17, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I thought the counting of votes was finished on this topic but people seem to
keep emailing their support/lack-of, so naturally I will be a good lemming
and do the same.
1) I am in favor of the two-maturity-levels draft and
I thought the counting of votes was finished on this topic but people seem to
keep emailing their support/lack-of, so naturally I will be a good lemming and
do the same.
1) I am in favor of the two-maturity-levels draft and change. I have consulted
a textbook on Euclidean geometry and
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Keith 2) This will not do any good
Keith IMO, that is a valid objection. Stability in our process is
Keith desirable; therefore change merely for the sake of change is
Keith undesirable.
This will not do any good,
On Sep 12, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Keith 2) This will not do any good
Keith IMO, that is a valid objection. Stability in our process is
Keith desirable; therefore change merely for the sake of change is
Sam Hartman wrote:
1) I support moving to a two level process.
I don't, and there were some other things in the document
(last time I read) that to which I dissent.
I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
objections when judging this sort of consensus:
On 9/9/11 6:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
I am surely going to regret posting, because I have largely tuned out
of this discussion due to the endless repetition, etc. I am not
supportive of the current document, because I don't think it solves
anything. To me, it smack a bit of change for changes
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels'
(draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09.txt) as a BCP
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.
A URL
Thomas,
I am in full agreement that document revision and bug fixing is the more
important activity for IETF. Not just in my opinion, but I think we can also
see it from the numbers of bis documents versus numbers of advancing documents.
But I think some amount of bug fixing and revision is
I think you will see that this question was discussed at least once. We asked
about moving to a one-level maturity model instead. The conclusion was that it
was possible to go from a two-level to a one-level in the future if that is
appropriate. However, if we go straight to a one-level now,
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
I think you will see that this question was discussed at least
once. We asked about moving to a one-level maturity model
instead. The conclusion was that it was possible to go from a
two-level to a
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
However, if we go straight to a one-level now, and then learn
that a two-level would have been better, we would be stuck.
But, if we go from a three-level to a two-level now, without
compelling evidence that it
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector
sant9...@gmail.com wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
However, if we go straight to a one-level now, and then learn
that a two-level would have been better, we would be stuck.
...
But I
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector
sant9...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, I was wondering which BIS documents with no RFC
publication dates would be candidates. 93 total.
Based on the first few, there are a bunch of errors in your
list.
Yes, just imported
1) Did the IESG consider processing this as RFC 3933 process experiment?
How on Earth could that possibly work?
First, simply the fact of the experiment will almost certainly prompt
people to participate, resulting in a number of specs upgrading from
PS to IS during the experiment... regardless
Mykyta:
Taking into account the controversy we all are able to observe on the mailing
list, I'd like to point out several points.
1) Did the IESG consider processing this as RFC 3933 process experiment? (I
actually don't know whether such approach has already been proposed during
the
On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
That said, at the plenary at IETF 81, Harald suggested that we have waited so
long that incremental improvements may not be the right approach, rather it
was time for 2026bis. I agree that it is needed, but I am not sure the IETF
community
On 9/9/2011 10:47 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
It was also very
difficult to make a full determination, because a lot of the discussion has been
on tangential topics, because in many cases it has been hard to see if a person
is on the no objection, absolutely not, or I have these additional ideas
10.09.2011 16:56, Barry Leiba wrote:
1) Did the IESG consider processing this as RFC 3933 process experiment?
How on Earth could that possibly work?
Those who are interested in something working will certainly find the
way to make it work.
First, simply the fact of the experiment will
10.09.2011 17:44, Russ Housley wrote:
Mykyta:
Taking into account the controversy we all are able to observe on the mailing
list, I'd like to point out several points.
1) Did the IESG consider processing this as RFC 3933 process experiment? (I actually don't know whether such
approach has
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 9/9/2011 10:47 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
It was also very
difficult to make a full determination, because a lot of the discussion
has been
on tangential topics, because in many cases it has been hard to see if a
person
Hi. I feel it's reasonable for me to speak up since I have not done so
in over a year on this document so my opinion probably has not been
counted.
1) I support moving to a two level process.
2) I've generally supported versions of this document I have read. I
have not read this version in
The question I have is who are the beneficiaries?
My input as a implementator.
For 30 or so years, I chose to followed the IETF output as an
commercial implementator based on sound engineering trust and faith on
follow peers, no reason to suspect or otherwise feel I need to appeal
anything.
Whether they were planned as part of revamp plan or not, I don't see
the two-step and the RFC2119bis efforts and recent debates here as a
mere coincidence.
Here is how Pareto Optimality design decisions are made such that
no-one could be made better off without making someone else worse off.
On 2011-09-11 08:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
snip
I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
objections when judging this sort of consensus:
1) You are not solving the most important problem
2) This will not do any good
Exactly. A very large part of the discussion
On 2011-09-11 08:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
snip
I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
objections when judging this sort of consensus:
2) This will not do any good
now lets see, this argument seems to be that the fact that a particular process
change
On Sep 10, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
In the current case, it's been particularly impressive to see criticisms
against the proposal because it does not solve problems it is not trying to
solve and because other problems are deemed higher priority.
Nevermind whether the
On Sep 10, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
objections when judging this sort of consensus:
1) You are not solving the most important problem
I don't think that was anybody's objection. Rather, the objection were
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-09-11 08:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
snip
I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
objections when judging this sort of consensus:
1) You are not solving the most important problem
2) This will not do any good
Exactly. A very large
--On Saturday, September 10, 2011 16:11 -0400 Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
I do not think the following types of comments should be
considered as objections when judging this sort of consensus:
1) You are not solving the most important problem
Sure. As long as we
So should we move to a one-step process?
On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Advancing a spec is done for marketing, political, process and other
reasons. E.g., to give a spec more legitimacy. Or to more clear
replace an older one. Nothing wrong with that.
Eric,
Thomas may well have a different answer but, speaking
personally, if we have a choice between a nominal three-step
process that is actually one-step with a few exceptions and a
nominal two-step process that is actually one-step with a few
exceptions, I think we would be much better off
On 2011-09-11 13:26, Eric Burger wrote:
So should we move to a one-step process?
There is a detailed proposal for that at
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01.txt
I don't think the arguments have changed much since 2006.
Brian
On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:33 PM,
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 14:49 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011-09-11 13:26, Eric Burger wrote:
So should we move to a one-step process?
There is a detailed proposal for that at
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-a
Amazing, this all seems to be a rehash of the RFC3844 WG (2002 - 2004)
debates and discussions:
http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement
The June 2003 quarter seems to be an interesting period of discussions
touching based with many of the central issues.
--
John C Klensin
consider
publishing it rather than draft-housley-two-maturity-levels, unless the
latter or other similar proposal can demonstrate that it will find the
way to affect the understanding of people whom RFCs are aimed to (which
is a Standards Track RFC is a Standard; maturity level doesn't
matter
Discussion on this topic has continued after my first attempt at judging
consensus. Additional people provided opinions (both positive and negative),
some new ideas were brought up, and some of the previous discussion continued
further. Some of the topics in the discussion included:
- status
Hi Jari,
On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IESG discussed the situation with this draft on its call yesterday and
decided to approve the document. A formal approval notice will be forthcoming
in the next couple of days.
What did the IESG decide about when/how this draft
Margaret:
The IESG discussed the situation with this draft on its call yesterday and
decided to approve the document. A formal approval notice will be
forthcoming in the next couple of days.
What did the IESG decide about when/how this draft will take effect? Has a
group been formed to
I am surely going to regret posting, because I have largely tuned out
of this discussion due to the endless repetition, etc. I am not
supportive of the current document, because I don't think it solves
anything. To me, it smack a bit of change for changes sake.
One of the key problems that isn't
Taking into account the controversy we all are able to observe on the
mailing list, I'd like to point out several points.
1) Did the IESG consider processing this as RFC 3933 process
experiment? (I actually don't know whether such approach has already
been proposed during the discussions,
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
To: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
Cc: ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:55 AM
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
but it means we are changing out a standard that
Face it, we've effectively had a one-step process pretty much ever since 2026
was approved. For the most part, the documents that have advanced have been
those that were buggy enough to need to be fixed, but not so buggy that they
had to recycle at Proposed.
Just one small problem here -
On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
Face it, we've effectively had a one-step process pretty much ever since 2026
was approved. For the most part, the documents that have advanced have been
those that were buggy enough to need to be fixed, but not so buggy that they
had to recycle
Cullen Jennings wrote:
If you want my opinion on who raised the bar, it was the
participants of the IETF that wrote many BCPs that they
expected future RFCs to be compliant with.
+1.
Another good example is when an unvetted informational helper RFC
was fast tracked, becomes a central
On Sep 7, 2011, at 12:01 AM, 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 and that anything named an
RFC should be recognized as something that
On Sep 7, 2011, at 12:01 AM, 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 and that anything named an
RFC should be recognized as something that
At 16:01 06-09-2011, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I don't believe the IESG raised the bar, I think the community
raised it in a series of IETF Last Calls. And I think this is good -
if this document were lowing the PS bar from what it is today, I'd
be strongly objecting to it. The problem in my mind
. But I
did not see an overwhelming consensus on any specific issue to make
changes. But I will ask Russ to take a look at the issue raised by
Scott, whether he wants to add an informative reference to RFC 5657.
I read draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09. I read the messages which
might
Its a balance. IMV, as long as the the new two maturity level process
does not change the IETF QA process negatively, I don't see a
problem with it but it does sound it will necessitate a higher, more
rigorous document reviews.
I haven't heard anyone currently on the IESG say that the two
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:38:14AM -0400, Ross Callon wrote:
I haven't heard anyone currently on the IESG say that the two step process
would require higher more rigorous document reviews.
That particular refusal to recognize part of reality is the thing that
annoys me about this draft
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:38:14AM -0400, Ross Callon wrote:
I haven't heard anyone currently on the IESG say that the two step process
would require higher more rigorous document reviews.
That particular refusal to recognize part
I find it impossible to believe that this will not result in even more
hard-line positions on the part of some IESG members when something
with which they disagree is a candidate for PS. I see no way in which
the draft solves this problem, which remains one of its implicit
goals. I
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
While I disagree with the WG Draft part, partially because I
think we do still derive significant value from cross-area
review, I agree with the rest of this.
FWIW, I am actually quite sympathetic to Ned's argument that the
presence of two levels past proposed and the amount of nonsense
that
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 and that anything named an
RFC should be recognized as something that market will consider a standard.
And who raised the bar? It
On Sep 6, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
I find it impossible to believe that this will not result in even more
hard-line positions on the part of some IESG members when something
with which they disagree is a candidate for PS. I see no way in which
the draft solves this problem, which
to it.
...
Well, if that's really what happened, then
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels seems to solve the wrong problem.
Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Sep 6, 2011, at 6:01 PM, 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 and that anything named an
RFC should be recognized as something that
On Tue Sep 6 23:01:12 2011, 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 and that anything
named an
RFC should be recognized as something that
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 it charge subsequent IESGs to return to a faithful reading of
the actual
On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:01 PM, 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 and that anything named an
RFC should be recognized as something that
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
with the IESG being blamed for this, rather than being
congratulated on adapting to it.
...
Well, if that's really what happened, then draft-housley-two-maturity-**levels
seems to solve the wrong problem.
Best regards, Julian
In at least one reading, it could be said that this draft is trying
On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
The IESG has been working to the assumption that Proposed Standards will be
widely deployed into all environments for a long time. That may well be an
appropriate response to the deployment practice (heck, if the internet runs
on internet
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
but it means we are changing out a standard that doesn't accurately reflect
what we do now for one that doesn't accurately reflect what we will do.
Yup. And IMO we're better off with the old incorrect statement than a new
one. At least with
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I wonder if we would be better off discarding the concept of layers of
standards, call PS Standards track, and instead specify a way to report
interoperability tests.
+1. Perhaps along with periodically updated applicability statements.
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I wonder if we would be better off discarding the concept of layers
of standards, call PS Standards track, and instead specify a way
to report interoperability tests.
+1. Perhaps along with
Hi Jari,
At 15:05 02-09-2011, Jari Arkko wrote:
But what I really wanted to say here was a response to your concern
about those proposals to do something else. Let me just state this
clearly. I know I would be VERY happy to sponsor many different
kinds of improvement proposals. In sequence or
Keith:
The current IETF Standards Process has become essentially a one-step process.
The goal, as I believe is stated in the document, is gather some benefit from
implementation and deployment experience. We are not getting that today. When
we do get it, the document recycles at the same
reference to RFC 5657.
I read draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09. I read the messages
which might be interpreted as statements of support. Mr Burger
offered that we are moving a baby step forward. Mr Resnick asked A
baby step toward what exactly to which Mr Saint-Andre pointed out
that we
Jari Arkko sed
I also saw a couple of opposing opinions, though some of them were more about
a desire to do something else
than specific objections about this proposal.
for the record in case Jari is confused - I have specific objection to this
proposal
imo - it fixes no known problem -
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 23:17 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I have reviewed the discussion from the last call on this
document.
My conclusion as the sponsoring AD is that we have consensus
to move forward. There was clearly a constituency who believed
this is a good
Honestly, the thing that is the most broken about this draft is the idea that
there's something wrong with our process because few drafts make it to full
standard, so the solution is to short-circuit the process. The transition from
Draft to Full Standard is the least of the problems with our
On 2 September 2011 22:20, John C Klensin wrote:
I simply don't know how those who are not speaking up feel
https://profiles.google.com/103449397114700758824/posts/1KALM7oLKzi
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C
Klensin
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 23:17 +0300
On Sep 2, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
Two things that I don't seem to have picked up on: (i) Any consensus that a 3
step process is better than a 2 step process; (ii) Any hint of moving towards
an agreement on other things that we might do to improve the process.
(iii) Any
In looking through this discussion, I see:
- People saying that moving from 3 steps to 2 steps is a small step in the
right direction, lets do it. Many people who have said this (including I) have
been silent for a while quite possibly because they have gotten frustrated
with
the endless
for the record in case Jari is confused - I have specific objection to this
proposal
I might well be, it would not be a surprise :-) but let me just clarify that I
said that there were objections, *some* of which were not specific. Not all.
Jari
...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of John C Klensin
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 23:17 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I have reviewed
SM,
The Sponsoring Area Director mentioned that the opposing opinions were more
about a desire to do something else than specific objections about this
proposal. An Area Director generally sponsors documents that he or she
believes in. I would like to point out that even if a desire to do
On Sep 2, 2011, at 5:36 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
In looking through this discussion, I see:
- People saying that moving from 3 steps to 2 steps is a small step in the
right direction, lets do it. Many people who have said this (including I)
have
been silent for a while quite
First, I'm in full agreement with Ross.
Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion on the last call was
the biggest group of responses said that we should move forward with the draft. There were two
smaller groups, those with a clear objection and those with
My main conclusion for the moment is that Last Call comments should indicate
first of all a definite Support or Oppose for the decision at hand if they are
to be counted for or against consensus.
I'm not going to state a position, which means that you should not count me as
either for or
I'm in the group that likes this document, thinks it will help us move
forward, and thinks we should stop babbling and just do it.
That said, I have a issue with what Ross says:
Two things that I don't seem to have picked up on: (i) Any consensus that a 3
step
process is better than a 2 step
--On Friday, September 02, 2011 14:36 -0700 Ned Freed
ned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
...
Well, that's the real problem, isn't it? Even if you believe
this is a distraction and even actively harmful, it's not like
we've been able to move past it either. The running code
result here seems
On Sep 2, 2011, at 5:36 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
In looking through this discussion, I see:
- People saying that moving from 3 steps to 2 steps is a small step in the
right direction, lets do it. Many people who have said this (including I)
have
been silent for a while
First, I'm in full agreement with Ross.
Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion
on the last call was the biggest group of responses said that we should move
forward with the draft. There were two smaller groups, those with a clear
objection and those with
On 2011-09-03 09:29, Ross Callon wrote:
...
I think that we should go to a two maturity level process, be done with
this little step, and also enthusiastically encourage people to write drafts
that propose *other* changes to the process. Then at least we can be debating
something different
On Sep 2, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
As far as our process is concerned, the question is, do we have rough
consensus to accept it? I think it's dubious that we have such consensus,
and
apparently so do others.
Simply put, I've watched the responses to this fairly closely, and I
On Sep 2, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
As far as our process is concerned, the question is, do we have rough
consensus to accept it? I think it's dubious that we have such consensus,
and
apparently so do others.
Simply put, I've watched the responses to this fairly closely,
Hi.
The recent discussion about DISCUSS and DS/IS documents has
inspired me to go back and think about the two maturity levels
draft again. Sadly, it hasn't changed my mind but has, in some
respects, reinforced and strengthened my earlier view that this
is not a good idea and is not harmless.
.
Please apply this logic to draft-housley-two-maturity-levels, of
which you are a co-author.
john
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I have reviewed the discussion from the last call on this document.
My conclusion as the sponsoring AD is that we have consensus to move forward.
There was clearly a constituency who believed this is a good (albeit small)
step forward. A number of other people did not care so much; did not
I pretty much agree, although one form of discuss might be
reasonable: This document needs to be recycled at Proposed
Standard because of the following *observed* interoperability
problem:
In other words, once we have got this BCP out (soon, please),
the IESG should update the DISCUSS
On Aug 14, 2011, at 5:49 AM, jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I pretty much agree, although one form of discuss might be
reasonable: This document needs to be recycled at Proposed
Standard because of the following *observed* interoperability
problem:
In other words, once we have got this
Keith,
However, as with most things I don't think there are hard and fast
rules.
I agree that such things need to be described, but I don't think this
description should be gated on, or wait for, advancement in grade. The
errata mechanism can be used to report some kinds of
On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:24 AM, jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
What I tried to say above is that I dislike hard rules such as:
- We should never require a -ds document to say additional things
- We should always apply the most recent IETF approved rules (such as BCP
109 on key management) to all
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Keith,
However, as with most things I don't think there are hard and fast
rules.
I agree that such things need to be described, but I don't think this
description should be gated on, or wait for, advancement in grade. The
errata mechanism can be used to report
believes in rough consensus too. The current
rules are available here:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html
Now, please return to the Last Call discussion of
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels on this subject line. If we want to discuss
the IESG ballot process further, please start
To add one observation to SM's comment and other observations
that the scarcity of implementation reports implies that they
are somehow difficult...
--On Friday, August 05, 2011 02:45 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
I presume that the IESG will only use the following criteria
for
1 - 100 of 423 matches
Mail list logo
