I'm seeing two things here.
One is that you need some context of *why* something is supported, as per your
examples.
The other is that you need a level of detail that's more than one line.
However, I'd note that *all* of those examples are (in my MUA) one line each.
So, can you clarify?
At 07:45 10-06-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure
(X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:
- 'Enrollment over Secure Transport'
draft-ietf-pkix-est-07.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a
document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or
will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and
effort.
randy
The IETF Last Call has finished after 06.06.13 and now you request
discussions. I think only IESG can call for discussions not editors.
On 6/10/13, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote:
We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment
from Adrian during IETF LC (which
We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment
from Adrian during IETF LC (which we wanted to address in the previous
revision, but forgot about it). We added a new section that can
trigger future work, as requested by Adrian.
I don't see that Adrian requested a
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:51 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a
document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or
will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and
effort.
If you say
We have to know, not that you have read the document, but that you have
-understood- it.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
[ra...@psg.com]
Sent: 11 June 2013 09:51
To:
Ad-hominem arguments are not good arguments.
Peer review depends on what the peer says, not who the peer is - something any
academic should know.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
A comment is a comment (important for discussing) which I want to see,
no matter if content-free or not, the origin requester (IETF Last
Call/WGLC) of such comments SHOULD specify which type of comment they
want if necessary. As long as it is a comment-on-discuss-lists any can
ask questions to the
On Jun 11, 2013, at 13:17, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
We have to know, not that you have read the document, but that you have
-understood- it.
Process experiment:
end all Internet-Drafts with a multiple-choice test.
Grüße, Carsten
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote:
A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG
member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free.
I think this is, in part, due to the question asked.
The IETF's Last Call
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at
11:46:29PM + Quoting Ted Lemon (ted.le...@nominum.com):
Determining consensus in an IETF last call is a bit more complicated
than that. It's not a working group last call. If someone objects to
publication during
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at
01:52:46PM +0200 Quoting Måns Nilsson (mansa...@besserwisser.org):
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those
On 6/11/2013 6:36 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
I think this is, in part, due to the question asked.
The IETF's Last Call announcement presumes much on the part of those
reading it. You're aiming to solicit something that's not asked for.
Compare and contrast with the XSF's Last Call announcements,
On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
You
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If we want the statements of support to be meaningful, they need to have
the creator of the statement do some real work -- more than mechanically
checking boxes -- demonstrating the 'understanding' that Lloyd suggests.
On 6/11/2013 5:25 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
We want understanding, of course, but I think requiring Russ to
demonstrate that by writing a paragraph or six on the finer points of
the proposal would be daft.
That's the problem with special-case exceptions, such as requiring less
work by an
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 6/11/2013 5:25 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
We want understanding, of course, but I think requiring Russ to
demonstrate that by writing a paragraph or six on the finer points of
the proposal would be daft.
That's the
On 6/11/13 8:12 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF
Re-formulating the LC text sounds like an excellent idea, to call for
more substantive comments.
perhaps we should go to the source of the problem and require a phd
dissertation and defense from draft authors.
how much process chaos can we create?
randy
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
how much process chaos can we create?
Don't ask questions you don't want answered! :)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Re-formulating the LC text sounds like an excellent idea, to call for
more substantive comments.
perhaps we should go to the source of the problem and require a phd
dissertation and defense from draft authors.
how much
How many RFCs describe things that are implemented?
How many RFCs describe things that are deployed?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland
[d...@cridland.net]
Sent: 11 June
[ Not sure if this is adding to the Signal or the Noise on the Discuss list,
but it *will* help bump up my ranking on the Weekly posting summary, which I
use to justify my participation to my management. That's what it's for, isn't
it?!* ]
On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Pete Resnick
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
If that were ever to happen, I don't see why not.
In the recent cases I've seen
On 06/11/2013 10:43 AM, John Levine wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
If that were ever to happen, I don't
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups
are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon.
Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
The IETF last call is for catching
On 6/11/13 9:52 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working
groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink
phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
Right. We've had some issues with document quality, and I
can think
On 6/11/2013 10:21 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
[ Not sure if this is adding to the Signal or the Noise on the
Discuss list, but it*will* help bump up my ranking on the Weekly
posting summary, which I use to justify my participation to my
management. That's what it's for, isn't it?!* ]
oh boy.
On 6/11/13 10:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
The IETF last call is for catching things the working group missed,
not for rehashing arguments that were beaten to death in the working
group.
I am not sure I fully understand why we're having this conversation,
or rather why this aspect of the broader
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're
voting. Details below.
Specifically on Stephen's message:
On 6/10/13 7:36 PM,
Pete,
On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're
voting. Details below.
Just to
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath.
Well, this thread is surely evidence that you don't always get what you
want.
But more
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want him to
write?
If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF consensus for a document
that gets no response in its Last
On 6/11/13 3:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Pete,
On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the
On 06/11/2013 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume
working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to
the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want
him to write?
If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF
On 6/11/2013 1:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
As I understand it cross-disciplinary review is also an important
function of the IETF LC.
This gets at the reality that the current IETF uses processing phases
rather more robustly than we used to. It certainly used to be that IETF
LC was
hi SM. thanks for your comments. sorry for the delay in response; i was on
vacation and unable to reply. replies inline.
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:13 AM
At 09:12 28-05-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
That in turn presumes we are defaulting to publication in all cases, and that
in turn seems problematic to me, because his answers become, in order:
a) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for
On 10/06/13 21:37, Pete Resnick wrote:
Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the
IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the
entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request:
On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
It is presumed that some degree of consensus to do the work of a working
group existed when that working group was chartered; otherwise it would not
have been chartered. When the working group reaches consensus to
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get done
under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus without any
IETF comments?)
I would expect that you'd start
On 6/11/13 4:30 AM, SM wrote:
At 07:45 10-06-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure
(X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:
- 'Enrollment over Secure Transport'
draft-ietf-pkix-est-07.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to
Right. We've had some issues with document quality, and I
can think of several documents that sailed through WG last
call and should not have.
there was a doc with which i had a small, but non trivial, issue. the
author and the wg did not think it worthwhile. i did not want to argue
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets'
(draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-14.txt) as Informational
RFC
This document is the product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: p...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/posh/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/posh
Purpose: Discussion about PKIX Over Secure HTTP, a method for secure
delegation of application
47 matches
Mail list logo
