There is something a bit weird in the IETF e-mail system.
The dna list moved from d...@eng.monash.edu.au to d...@ietf.org in June 2008.
I
changed my address in 2010 (and get a monthly reminder from the IETF to confirm
that the change was effective).
The i-d-announce for this I-D and the IETF
Hi all,
we have just submitted a new version of the privacy and identity
management terminology document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hansen-privacy-terminology-01.
txt
The full document titel is Terminology for Talking about Privacy by
Data Minimization: Anonymity,
Tom,
There is indeed some confusion, somehow at the point when we changed the
list to an IETF one, not all places got updated. If the working group
still existed (I closed it a while ago) I would ask this to be remedied.
As it is, I decided to just e-mail both lists for the handful of e-mails
Marshall -
I would suggest that given you've chosen the location based on the assumption
that Bob's 1/1/1 model is most correct and that its possible that a review of
the data relative to more persistent attendees or more active attendees may
suggest a different model, that you toll closing
I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize
the cost of getting our work done, not to minimize the cost for walk-in
attendees. However, to measure this, I suggest we count contributions
as we do for IPR purposes:
c. IETF Contribution: any submission to the IETF
Offlist
I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize
the cost of getting our work done, not to minimize the cost for walk-in
attendees. However, to measure this, I suggest we count contributions
as we do for IPR purposes:
c. IETF Contribution: any submission to
Mike,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Marshall -
I would suggest that given you've chosen the location based on the assumption
that Bob's 1/1/1 model is most correct and that its possible that a review of
the data relative to more persistent attendees or more active
HAH...
Offlist
Awesome. My apologies for asking the offline question onlist.
It's like they'll let ANYBODY post here :-(
Spencer
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scott,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize
the cost of getting our work done, not to minimize the cost for walk-in
attendees.
I agree.
However, to measure this, I suggest we count contributions
as we
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/11/10 11:05 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I would
assume everyone attending an IETF meeting has said something at the
meeting (in a session, or in the hall, etc.) that could be construed
as a contribution
In my experience, 80% or more
Hi Bob -
A hallway conversation is NOT by default an IETF Session or even an IETF
Activity in any way, shape or form and to be clear, it's unclear whether or
not even a Bar BOF as semi-formal as it is should be considered an IETF
Session.
If we go more targeted to the definition -
On 8/11/10 11:25 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/11/10 11:05 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I would assume everyone attending an IETF meeting has said
something at the meeting (in a session, or in the hall, etc.)
that could be construed as a
At 12:35 PM 8/11/2010, Bob Hinden wrote:
While I can't speak for Marshall, I think he was pointing out that the IAD
sent out proposed dates for 2014-2017 to the community and no comments were
received. This was done twice and afterwards the IAOC adopted the dates.
Also, to your other query,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:30:35AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Contribution. Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions,
as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or
place, which are addressed to:
* Any IETF working group or portion thereof
IETF
Mike,
I will note that for any given person asking if a date 4-7 years out is bad
is probably going to get pretty much a huh? why are you asking me now? and
the silence you encountered. In this case, silence isn't so much consent as
I have no useful data to convey.
But given the
While personally I agree (as in I have no idea what I will be doing in 2017),
in order to schedule meetings and avoid conflicts with other organizations I
don't see any alternative to set these dates into the future. Once they are
published other organizations see them and make their
Andrew -
Interesting take but one that probably isn't supported by the black letter
reading of the Note Well.
In general, the Note Well describes the class of things that might be
contributions, but for them to become actionable contributions, they need to
make it into the IETF record. I
Sorry - forgot to add:
or portion thereof refers to things like design teams, not a random group of
people who happened to sit in the WG session.
Mike
At 02:40 PM 8/11/2010, Michael StJohns wrote:
Andrew -
Interesting take but one that probably isn't supported by the black letter
reading
Mike,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
While personally I agree (as in I have no idea what I will be doing in
2017), in order to schedule meetings and avoid conflicts with other
organizations I don't see any alternative to set these dates into the
future. Once they
Dear Michael;
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Marshall -
I would suggest that given you've chosen the location based on the assumption
that Bob's 1/1/1 model is most
The dates are independent of locations, so this does not depend at all on the
model chosen.
To be
On 8/11/10 11:46 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Mike,
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
While personally I agree (as in I have no idea what I will be doing in
2017), in order to schedule meetings and avoid conflicts with other
organizations I don't see any alternative to set
On 08/11/2010 14:40 EDT, Michael StJohns wrote:
Andrew -
Interesting take but one that probably isn't supported by the black
letter reading of the Note Well.
In general, the Note Well describes the class of things that might be
contributions, but for them to become actionable
I don't see why the model has to add up to a multiple of 3 -- we have an
essentially unlimited number of future meetings to schedule, and should be able
handle a grouping that doesn't necessarily end on a year boundary each time.
My problem with 3-2-1 is that I am not sure whether the 1 should
Right, that's seemingly covered by the text that Andrew elided:
Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for
publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and
any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is
considered an IETF Contribution.
I like the 1-1-1-* model: of every 4 meetings, hold 1 in North America,
1 in Europe, 1 in Asia, and 1 anywhere (could be one of the above or
some non-standard location like Africa or South America if that can be
worked out).
On 8/11/10 1:27 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
I don't see why the model has to
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
With regard to the major issue, in response to other comments, the
offending sentence (which is, as Ben observes, wrong, has been removed.
More precisely, there is now a note to the RFC Editor to remvoe the
sentence. If we need to revise the document for other reasons, we will
remove it
It would be good if all announcements for new mailing lists came with a
purpose or description. Not everybody knows what 'oam' means, and it
would save people quite a bit of their time if they wouldn't have to
look it up.
Thanks and regards,Martin.
On 2010/08/12 6:41, IESG Secretary
Thanks, Joel. That addresses all of my concerns.
On Aug 11, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
With regard to the major issue, in response to other comments, the offending
sentence (which is, as Ben observes, wrong, has been removed. More
precisely, there is now
I think that for each 9 meetings ( 3 year cycle ) 1 meeting would be in
South America and another in Africa.
De: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
Para: Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net
Cc: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 11
Hi Joel,
At 18:06 11-08-10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
reasons, we will remove it ourselves. The document is being
publsiehd as informational, and the underlying documents were just
published as PS. We are NOT trying to move them
Out of curiosity, why is the implementation report being
The attendance from South America and Africa has really been low.
And I am supposed to believe that the initial meetings in either South America
or Africa would not reach some so high attendance from local community. I have
already attended an IETF meeting funded by ISOC and have worked for
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5938
Title: Individual Session Control Feature for
the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
Author: A. Morton, M. Chiba
Status: Standards
RFC 5652 has been elevated to a Full Standard.
STD 70
RFC 5652
Title: Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Author: R. Housley
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: September 2009
Mailbox:
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: o...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oam/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oam
For additional information, please contact the list administrators.
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: v4tov6transit...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v4tov6transition/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
List Purpose: To support the activity of the design team that
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: d...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Description: This list is for DMM (distributed mobility management)
related discussions. DMM is aimed
37 matches
Mail list logo
