This draft is being last called for the second time, as it was discovered late
that we had missed an IANA requirement. Suresh Krishnan (author of the RFC 5453
registry for interface identifiers) noted that any allocations need to be made
in Proposed Standard RFCs, and I had taken the draft
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
jaeggli
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: hector; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs
One of the assumptions here is that discussion without
Following up with a personal comment.
The draft allocates an interface ID and an EUI-64 MAC identifier from the IANA
block. These are two separate, unrelated allocations.
The main criticism in RFC 5453 for making additional interface ID allocations
is that old implementations do not know
Brian,
So far you are the only person that has responded with substance. Other
feedback was promised but never arrived. I hope to rev this document shortly so
that we can finalize it before the Taiwan meeting.
I wrote:
Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
I still do not understand the basic problem that trigger/cause that propsal.
Have been
Roger,
I still do not understand the basic problem that trigger/cause that propsal.
Have been alot of discussion and suggestion and problems but nothing
that made me understand why, what is the underlaying cause.
It is very simple. Both the IAB and IETF chair duties are extensive, and
Olaf,
On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to
1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members
Hi Olaf,
I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings
about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game.
A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I
haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that.
Bob,
I appreciate your view on this, particularly when you are day-to-day seeing how
the current system works with IAOC.
That being said, I do think it is important to give some flexibility to chairs
on organizing their work. And it is important to provide tools for them to
manage their
--On Monday, September 19, 2011 10:37 +0200 Roger Jørgensen
rog...@gmail.com wrote:
Have been alot of discussion and suggestion and problems but
nothing that made me understand why, what is the underlaying
cause. (it could be that I'm just slow, we shouldn't rule that
out :-) )
Roger,
The
Olaf == Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl writes:
Olaf Dear Colleagues,
Olaf I have just chartered a very short draft that intends to
Olaf update BCP101. It can be found at:
Olaf http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
Olaf The draft is very short
Hi All,
We are halfway through the nomination period (it ends on October
2, 2011) and we need more nominees than we have received so
far. We appreciate the folks that have taken the time to nominate
people and those who have accepted so far. But the fact remains
that the number of nominations
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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 resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
Document:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Olaf == Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl writes:
Olaf Dear Colleagues,
Olaf I have just chartered a very short draft that intends to
Olaf update BCP101. It can be found at:
Olaf
For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of the
justification for Olaf's proposal.
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions less
of a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
I could be in the rough on whether this specific proposal is the
Murry,
I think I agree that a wiki page for every RFC is too chaotic an idea to
be workable.
I agree with the thought that the suggestion under consideration could
usefully be amended as a wiki page for every RFC that needs one.
If I write a specification, it's published as an RFC, and we
I think the draft would be improved by explicitly considering these
issues and not remaining silent, even if the decision is to say that
these are full members; existing processes for recall etc apply; at the
time of writing that means blah. I think that would lead to better
discussion and review
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.orgwrote:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Again I would like to bring up the idea of
On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
I don't. I'm basically in Paul's camp, although I don't think the
greatest risk is that there'd be a negative impact on how the
organization will be perceived by the community
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the
experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just
an
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the
experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just
an experiment.
Agreed. In my experience, wikis only work well if they have someone
On 9/19/2011 8:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions less of
a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I think it
accurately summarizes the focus of this thread, so
Dear Spencer;
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org
wrote:
For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of the
justification for Olaf's proposal.
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions
less of a full-time
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: Paul Hoffman; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave On 9/19/2011 8:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair
positions less of a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
Dave Anything? I believe you do not believe that
Jonne,
First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta!
Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä
polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella että kukaan olisi samaa mieltä mistään,
'kele!) Too bad the English version was not as graphic.
--On Monday, September 19, 2011 14:04 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
marshall.euba...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Spencer;
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org
wrote:
For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of
the justification for Olaf's
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
Hi, Dave,
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions
less of
a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I think it
accurately summarizes the focus of this thread, so far.
Thanks for the wake-up
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
I think that if some people support
On 9/19/2011 12:26 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
but I would like us to think about if not this, what gets offloaded?
+1
There is a real problem to solve. I* folk are, in fact, seriously overloaded.
Besides being inherently unreasonable, it makes it harder to find candidates for
the
--On Monday, September 19, 2011 14:26 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I
think it accurately summarizes the focus of this thread, so
far.
...
I am carefully reading the notes that were posted after I
posted.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Alejandro Acosta
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Dave,
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions
less of
a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I think it
accurately summarizes the focus of this
At 01:05 19-09-2011, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
As far as I understand the trust agreement the
voting members and the IAD are members of the
trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of
the IAOC then the idea is that they would not be
trustees and a modification of the trust
agreement is not
John,
FWIW, in my tenures on the IESG and IAB, there were often folks
who had a lot less long-term perspective on those bodies, the
IETF, and the Internet than the Chairs and some who had as much
or more. Unless we are willing to make the magical assumption,
I don't think Chair has knowledge
Hi Jari,
On 9/19/11 9:36 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Jonne,
First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta!
Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä
polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella että kukaan olisi samaa mieltä
Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
The meaning of SHOULD is clear for the authors (it mean[s] that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular
item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed
before choosing a different course.), the
On 2011-09-19 20:05, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
snip
Also, the new section 2.3, which is incorrectly titled but presumably
is intended to be IETF Trust membership seems to me to be inconsistent
with the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement states that the Eligible
Persons
(to become Trustees) are
As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD
are members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the IAOC
then the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification of the
trust agreement is not needed. That can be clarified.
If the
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Marshall Eubanks
marshall.euba...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Alejandro Acosta
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM,
I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad
idea that would create many cesspools of controversy.
Donald
On 9/19/11, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the
On 9/19/11 20:27 , Donald Eastlake wrote:
I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad
idea that would create many cesspools of controversy.
6393 of them at present count...
It should not go unremarked that 6393 updates an existing document and
performs a standards
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-03.txt as a
Proposed Standard
This draft is being last called for the second time, as
The IESG has received a request from the Data for Reachability of
Inter/tra-NetworK SIP WG (drinks) to consider the following document:
- 'Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP (DRINKS) Use cases and
Protocol Requirements'
draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-06.txt as an
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Web Host Metadata'
(draft-hammer-hostmeta-17.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Peter Saint-Andre.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
47 matches
Mail list logo
