- Original Message -
From: Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearl...@baesystems.com
Cc: bra...@isi.edu; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:01 PM
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
On 06/03/2013 08:36, t.p. wrote:
...
Interesting, there is more life in Congestion Control than I might have
thought. But it begs the question, is this something that the IETF
should be involved with or is it better handled by those who are
developping LTE etc?
From the little I know about
The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Byte and Packet Congestion Notification'
draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to
Cameron Byrne wrote:
In the 3GPP case of GSM/UMTS/LTE, the wireless network will never drop
the packet, by design.
According to the end to end argument, that's simply impossible,
because intermediate equipments holding packets not confirmed
by the next hop may corrupt the packets or suddenly
3GPP has to never drop a packet because it's doing zero-header compression.
Lose a bit, lose everything.
And ROHC is an IETF product.
I'm pretty sure the saving on headers is more than made up for in FEC, delay,
etc. Not the engineering tradeoff one might want.
Lloyd Wood
I have a huge number of concerns with Russ's message and am frustrated
and disappointed when I think about this year's nomcom process. I just
sent a message to the nomcom and iab about one of my concerns, and would
like to ask you whether you think you should do the same. I
specifically ask you
l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
3GPP has to never drop a packet because it's doing zero-header
compression.
has to never? Even though it must, when it goes down.
Lose a bit, lose everything.
You totally deny FEC. Wow!!!
And ROHC is an IETF product.
I'm pretty sure the saving on headers is
A few personal thoughts follows. For the record this is completely at the
general level, I have no inside knowledge about the nomination process.
I am of the opinion that ADs should not be selected based on them being rare
super experts. The ability to learn, as Sam pointed out, is perhaps
Hi Jari,
On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
And I think we should have a broader view about this than just updating the
requirements for the seat. There are a couple of other aspects to consider as
well. First, perhaps the way that we have organised TSV is
Margaret,
However, I question the wisdom of choosing to work on this issue _right now_
in the middle of the nomcom selection process, rather than choosing the best
candidates we can and working on this problem for next year, or for future
years. It doesn't seem likely that there are
On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at
the set of nominees and consider what you know about their
qualifications.
...
I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach
for raising this concern. I'm
Dave, it seems to me that with your suggestion it feels as if
you (or we the community) want to redo some of the nomcom work?
I.e. you do not trust their evaluations?
They also have received (I presume) lots of feedback on the candidates
and probably did some interviews. We do not have that
On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we
are doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to
me…
I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we
Dave,
There's an aspect of what people tend to include when talking about
politicking that is
not - AFAIK - part of the job as a member of the IESG or as an AD. That aspect
is the desire to be
much in the public.
So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I
Dave happened to have discussed privately some time ago and
Dave unrelated to the specific TSV situation...
Dave There's an option available that the candidates
On 3/6/2013 6:03 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
Dave, it seems to me that with your suggestion it feels as if
you (or we the community) want to redo some of the nomcom work?
I.e. you do not trust their evaluations?
They also have received (I presume) lots of feedback on the candidates
and
--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray
eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
...
So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an
IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with
the masses, baby kissing, etc.
...
I can't speak to baby kissing but the
John,
I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a
number of recent
events with which I am intimately familiar.
To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection
that is much
more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the
Eric,
As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair, sometimes
known as the AD for the General Area, is selected by the nomcom and
confirmed by the IAB just like all other ADs. They are not elected
chair of the IESG by the IESG members.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Eric,
You are describing the process of IAB selection as opposed to IESG
selection for ensuring there is someone that is a potential chair.
The IAB voting members select the IAB chair. The IESG members do not
select the IETF chair.
Regards,
Mary.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Eric Gray
Eric,
On 06/03/2013 14:29, Eric Gray wrote:
John,
I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a
number of recent
events with which I am intimately familiar.
To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection
that is much
more
Eric: you may be thinking of the IAB chair. IETF chair / Gen AD is selected by
the noncom, whereas the IAB chair is selected by IAB members (from the pool of
the IAB members).
[Baby kissing? Now there is a job requirement that I missed… :-) ]
Jari
Hi Eric,
The IETF Chair (who also chairs the IESG) is not selected by the IESG members
from amongst themselves. The IETF Chair is chosen by the nomcom directly.
The IAB chair is chosen by the IAB as you have described.
Margaret
On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:m...@lilacglade.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High
Hi Eric,
The IETF Chair (who also chairs
Brian,
Thanks! Not sure that this changes anything with respect to the rest
of the
IESG, however...
--
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
Thanks, Mary.
-Original Message-
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:40 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High
Eric,
You are describing the process
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:37 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High
Eric,
As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair,
Chairs
Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below.
Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft?
Certainly I think it would be useful in IESG review.
Stewart
On 11/02/2013 21:15, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, Ben Campbell
Hi Sam,
I think the Nomcom has made the right decision to bring the job requirement
discussion to the community.
The discussion about the evolution of the Transport Area had also been very
insightful to me.
I hope you provided your feedback to the Nomcom when they asked for it.
Ciao
On 3/6/2013 6:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Candidates could choose to circulate the first part
Dave publicly.
I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be
undesirable.
Just to be clear: I am not
On Mar 6, 2013 1:03 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 06/03/2013 08:36, t.p. wrote:
...
Interesting, there is more life in Congestion Control than I might have
thought. But it begs the question, is this something that the IETF
should be involved with or is it
See also:
http://www.akamai.com/html/about/press/releases/2012/press_091312.html
Irrespectively Yours,
John
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cameron
Byrne
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:12 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: bra...@isi.edu; IETF-Discussion
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 3/6/2013 6:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Candidates could choose to circulate the first part
Dave publicly.
I think having a public discussion of
At 08:50 AM 3/6/2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take.
I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we
should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a
reorganisation would be a bad
On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).
Melinda
On 3/6/2013 9:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).
It has always
From: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
is this something that the IETF should be involved with or is it better
handled by those who are developping LTE etc?
I would _like_ to think it's better done by the IETF, since congestion
control/response more or less has to be done on an
Hi,
Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting
that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the
community can have additional information for providing feedback to the
Nomcom.
I agree with Dave on this.
I try to give feedback on the
On 3/5/2013 2:52 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
While the IETF is unique in many ways, the staff-volunteer issue
isn't all that unique. Many organizations face this. As one example,
organizations like IEEE and ACM struggle with this. (For example,
they have, over the years, delegated many
Bob,
This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give
feedback on someone
you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give
feedback on them (and that is
precisely as it
Sam,
Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind of candidates are
suitable for the task.
However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the public list, I
wanted to do it for one aspect. I have a suggestion that relates to who you are
directing your criticism to.
Yes they are useful and yes we should keep making them.
Thanks,
Jari
--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 09:35 -0800 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
...
It has always been an election process. Nomcom does the
voting.
Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their
Nomcom interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most
appealing light.
Eric,
This was exactly the point I made earlier in an email to Dave Crocker.
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Eric Gray
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:59 PM
To: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net
Eric,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
Bob,
This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give
feedback on someone
you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
I would think that - if you
Mary,
There's a difference between evaluating someone based on what they said
(as you
point out is part of the NomCom's job) and evaluating someone based on what
somebody else
said about what they said.
If - in the latter case - someone offering feedback based strictly on
what
Mary,
As a potential nominee I considered the questionnaire to be a barrier to entry
and as a NomCom member I considered the questionnaire answers to be useless.
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Eric,
On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote:
Bob,
This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give
feedback on someone
you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you
Okay, thanks Bob. This makes sense...
-Original Message-
From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High
Eric,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote:
Mary,
There's a difference between evaluating someone based on what they
said (as you
point out is part of the NomCom's job) and evaluating someone based on what
somebody else
said about what they said.
For what it's worth, candidates in professional organizations (IEEE, ACM, say)
routinely publish basic information about themselves, typically of two kinds:
* what have they done before (both within the organization as well as other
roles)
* vision for their position and the organization
Henning,
This is essentially what I meant in agree with Mary about including a
personal CV.
However, even in the ACM/IEEE cases, there is a pronounced tendency to
go with
the better write-up than with necessarily the best candidate. That's because
practically
nobody actually
On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been
selected
On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
On this specific point ...
Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
material such as future job prospects or even plans
Hi Mike,
At 08:44 06-03-2013, Michael StJohns wrote:
I would suggest that it's probably time to re-convene the how do we
select people working group. Given the number of issues - recall,
IAOC, this, ineligible others - we've encountered lately, I don't
think just cutting and pasting a new
On 2013-02-27 10:20 Tim Chown said the following:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not
On 2013-03-01 13:41 Mikael Abrahamsson said the following:
So I guess one still has to keep track of daylight savings. Personally I
prefer to have local time for meetings, otherwise UTC is nice.
Local timezone indication is now available, calculated for the particular date
and time for each
On 3/6/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Mike,
At 08:44 06-03-2013, Michael StJohns wrote:
I would suggest that it's probably time to re-convene the how do we
select people working group. Given the number of issues - recall,
IAOC, this, ineligible others - we've encountered lately, I don't
think
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
On this specific point ...
Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
On this specific point ...
Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.
I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
On 2013-02-27 10:20 Tim Chown said the following:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
in local time (local to
John E Drake wrote:
See also:
http://www.akamai.com/html/about/press/releases/2012/press_091312.html
It seems to me that Akamai is doing things which must be
banned by IETF.
Akamai IP Application Accelerator
http://www.atoll.gr/media/brosures/FS_IPA.pdf
Packet Loss
Jari == Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes:
Jari Sam, Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind
Jari of candidates are suitable for the task.
Jari However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the
Jari public list, I wanted to do it for one
Martin,
An article like this is the best reason why we should never finally resolve the
buffer bloat issue: Doing that would take away the opportunity for
generations of researcher to over and over regurgitate the same proposed
improvements and gain PhDs in the process.
I mean the Internet wold
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:52:56AM +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 19:44, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport
protocols that need to do congestion control. Further, the (current)
split of work
+1 +1 +1
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 08:24:58PM +, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/03/13 15:14, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca allegedly
wrote:
To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
(I just want to
Dear IAB and NomCom 2012,
In a message dated February 6, the NomCom Chair requested feedback
from the IETF Community for the TSV Area Director position. In a
message dated March 3, the IETF Chair mentioned that it might be that
no candidate has yet been found that meets the specific
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 03:55:39PM +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
only if the Y directorate reviews all IDs going through the IESG. Which in
itself is a scaling issue. It may work for some topics, but things will fall
through the cracks for various reasons.
IMO congestion control is important
Really ? You don't think a good AD should primarily look for factual evidence
(lab, simulation, interop, ..) results produced by others to judge whether
sufficient work was done to proof that the known entry critera are met
(like no congestion cllapse) - instead of trying to judge those solely
by
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Increasing TCP's Initial Window'
(draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-08.txt) as Experimental RFC
This document is the product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling.
A
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The DHCPv4 Relay Agent Identifier Suboption'
(draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-13.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RADIUS Attribute for 6rd'
(draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-11.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Softwires Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.
A URL of this Internet Draft
73 matches
Mail list logo
