Hi,
so I'm happy to see that we now have IETF dates blocked until 2010 on
http://ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html, but hotel information for
Dallas would be more useful to me personally. ETA on that?
Thanks,
Lars
--
Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories
One rather different thread:
Sam said:
However a PR action is an incredibly huge hammer. If passed, it
removes any process barrier to shutting Jefsey out of any IETF
process. While this PR action is specifically targeted at the
ietf-languages list it would give the person running any IETF
Hi,
Has there been any discussion in the upper echelons of the IETF about the
issue of Friday sessions?
If you look back over past agendas, it's typically a day with around 3-5
meetings in one session to 11.30am, of which half or more are BoFs.
Is this likely to continue, such that if you're
Lars,
Sorry but the dates for 2008-10 are NOT blocked - those are strawman
dates that should not have been shown in the calendar yet.
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
Should be open *really* soon
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
Should be open *really* soon now.
And the hotel info?
(And is the meeting ending 11.30am on
As far I am concerned, the PR-action engaged against me by Harald
Alvestrand is per se of no interest. I just have some general
comments and one question about it, I will address separately.
What is more interesting is how the IETF and the Internet community
may benefit from the three issues
Hi Harald,
- About five people send thank-you notes, and wonder whether
the IESG will get off its butt and allow him to be suspended
permanently, usually accompanied with ruminations about
whether it makes any sense to participate in an organization
that is so completely ineffective in
Hi,
Jordi developed this document largely at my request and with
frequent interaction with the IAD. Clearly, it's intended to be
of use to IASA in the selection of future meeting sites, and
equally of use to potential hosts in understanding the
requirements. Self-evidently, it is not intended to
Tim,
The web site says:
We start Monday morning and run through Friday lunchtime, with late scheduling changes. Newcomer's training and technical
tutorials takes place the previous Sunday afternoon. Participants should plan their travel accordingly.
Friday morning is part of the IETF. It's
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:03:52AM -0500,
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 155 lines which said:
I also have found that Jefsey's posts have a higher signal-to-noise
ratio than many peoples' posts, but I am willing to chalk some of
that up to the fact that he is a
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:03:52AM -0500,
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 155 lines which said:
I also have found that Jefsey's posts have a higher signal-to-noise
ratio than many peoples' posts, but I am willing to chalk some of
that up
Glad to hear it is not just me.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Stephane Bortzmeyer
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 13:41
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; 'Scott Hollenbeck'; 'Sam Hartman';
ietf@ietf.org;
Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
Should be open *really* soon now.
And the hotel info?
The hotel blocks
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Richard Shockey wrote:
This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is
directly within their oversight and charter.
What is the relationship of this document to the IAOC?
I agree that these are
Marshall,
RFCs are living documents as well, though the process for
change is somewhat cumbersome. There are examples of RFCs that
have been updated many times in the last few years.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On
However a PR action is an incredibly huge hammer.
...
I have to reluctantly agree with Sam. I'm reluctant because
there are far too many days when I wish Jefsey would just
quietly go away Of course, he is not the only person I'd put on
that list, and I imagine I'm on some similar lists kept
So, could people please review it for errors and omissions?
My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation
and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure
how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's
please not), I think they reflect a
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald --On torsdag, januar 19, 2006 20:03:56 -0500 Sam Hartman
Harald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd first ask why repeated 30-day suspensions are ineffective.
Harald seems to be getting fairly efficient at suspending
Well said Barry!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 17:31
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
So,
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is why I chose to give the necessary time to common sense to prevail,
in exposing their mistakes in a way they could forced to correct some of
them. The democratic method for that is work and filibustering.
Filibustering is not pleasant. But it
It is broken, anyone that has proposed to host an IETF meeting know it. What
you can read in the actual web page about hosting a meeting is not correct
in the reality, and can't be 100% subjective (yes there will be a decision
at the end, and that imply certain degree of subjectivity, but a
On Jan 19, 2006, at 10:11 AM, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
...
multinationalisation calls for the concept to be equally understood
(what does understand mean?) the same way between every cultures
(every ends are equal). Either because the concept is truly universal.
Or because you built all
Sam,
let me put it this way:
Changing the rules in the middle of the process is Just Plain Stupid. We've
done that too many times to count.
We can return to our experience with the process once this round is over,
and may choose to revisit the set of options we have and see if we can add
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
What about suspending Jefsey from just the ietf-langugages list and
possibly the ltru list?
Isn't that what the last call says? It allows other list mangers
to ban him too, but doesn't require it.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are people on this list still arguing about this? I thought members
of this list were supposed to be grown-ups (?).
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Tony == Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tony On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
What about suspending Jefsey from just the ietf-langugages
list and possibly the ltru list?
Tony Isn't that what the last call says? It allows other list
Tony mangers to ban him too,
Margaret,
RFC 3683 gives you broad discretion on the basis to make a decision, and
gives WG chairs broad discretion on what actions they should take. As
you had a hand in it, perhaps you can refresh my memory, but as I recall
that's all by design. This is not a really freedom of speech exercise,
Anthony == Anthony G Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony Are people on this list still arguing about this? I
Anthony thought members of this list were supposed to be
Anthony grown-ups (?).
actually, we've just started arguing about it.
All the previous arguments were This
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John For whatever it is worth, I want to remind the IESG that,
John before there was RFC 3683, there was a notion, not only of
John 30 day suspensions, but of exponential (or other rapidly
John increasing series) back-off. If
Michael Everson wrote:
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is why I chose to give the necessary time to common
sense to prevail,
[...]
JFTR, that was in Sam's article where he _quoted_ Jefsey...
Excuse me?
...I guess you missed the quoting, the source is published
in
In my opinion, this action is not appropriate in this case.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Scott Hollenbeck
-- Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:35 AM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org; ietf-announce@ietf.org
-- Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Sam Hartman wrote:
I'd recommend sending a summary of your position possibly
with pointers to the last call thread. I suspect only
comments entered during the last call will be considered.
One older pointer wrt RfC 3683 is
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/16874
This proposal
On Friday, January 20, 2006 03:06:54 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system
for credit card processing, and we want it to
Frank == Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Unrelated, I'm not sure why it was published _there_ , the
Frank IAB has its own directory for appeals.
It's an appeal to the IESG.
Jefsey's been a bit active in the appeal front lately:
1) He appealed a typo correction in RFC
Hi Eliot,
RFC 3683 gives you broad discretion on the basis to make a
decision, and gives WG chairs broad discretion on what
actions they should take. As you had a hand in it, perhaps
you can refresh my memory,
Just for the record... I was not involved in the publication of RFC 3683.
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Well said Barry!
From: Barry Leiba
My biggest concern is in sections 2.3. Freedom of Participation
and 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas, in that I'm not sure
how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2006 03:06:54 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system
for credit card
JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JFC 3. I proposed an evolution in the WG working method. In using
JFC position links: every contributor expresses his positions on
JFC a page he can update as the debate goes. I proposed this to
JFC the GNSO WG-Review which
Sam Hartman wrote:
1) He appealed a typo correction in RFC 3066bis to the area
director.
2) He appealed the rejection in 1 above to the IESG.
Yes, so far I was on track, but I lost it at...
5) He appealed the approval of RFC3066bis to the IESG. That
appeal is ongoing.
...thinking
Sam,
Clearly we should be thinking about some way to charge
participants for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process
in general. There is some minimal processing time associated
with any appeal for everyone who has anything to do with it.
I don't think posting rights is
Frank == Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank One older pointer wrt RfC 3683 is
Frank http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/16874
Frank This proposal was to update 3934, maybe obsolete 3683. The
Frank hypothetical 3934bis should be for all official IETF
Sam,
Clearly we should be thinking about some way to charge
participants for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process
in general. There is some minimal processing time associated
with any appeal for everyone who has anything to do with it.
I don't think posting rights is
Dear Sam,
I go through your comment.
At 22:10 20/01/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JFC 3. I proposed an evolution in the WG working method. In using
JFC position links: every contributor expresses his positions on
JFC a page he can
I will be out of the office starting 12/23/2005 and will not return until
02/01/2006.
@+ manu
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I will be out of the office starting 12/23/2005 and will not return until
02/01/2006.
@+ manu
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Sam Hartman wrote:
I've prepared a draft under RFC 3933 that hopes to accomplish
this. The draft can be found at
http://www.meepzorp.org/~hartmans/draft-hartmans-mailinglist-experiment.txt
Sounds okay, maybe two nits:
[quoting 3005]
Complaints regarding their decisions should be referred
JFC == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JFC Dear Sam, I go through JFC The problem is that the IETF works by
consensus but thinks by
JFC hummings. Working by consensus means that I MAY be right
JFC against _everyone_ (here an external affinity group in a new
JFC
From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clearly we should be thinking about some way to charge participants
for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process in general. There is
some minimal processing time associated with any appeal for everyone
who has anything to do with
Dear Sam,
I reviewed the meaning of filibustering in different dictionaries
and wikipedia. I have to apologize to everyone. I took the word [from
its origin - filibustero, flibustier, freebooter] in a totally
confusing way. Actually, I see now that a filibuster is what Harald
has now engaged
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Management Information Base for IS-IS '
draft-ietf-isis-wg-mib-26.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner.
A URL of this
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Security Area. For additional
information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
+++
EAP Method Update (emu)
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chairs:
Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Salowey [EMAIL
The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) WG
to consider the following document:
- 'Using the GOST R 34.10-94, GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms
with the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL
Profile. '
52 matches
Mail list logo
