Lloyd,
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually
agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views
On 7/10/2013 8:52 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
...
I can think of one company who uses to IETF to have internal arguments. But at
the same time, I can think of
It was pointed out to the document authors privately that a locally
caching Map Server, as mentioned in the penultimate bullet of Section
2.3, is not something that we should recommend anymore.
We, the authors agree, and want to note that the concept of a locally
caching Map Server was
Can you help me understand why the One Day Pass rate ($350) is so high
compared with the full week rate ($650 / $800)?
Registering for two days could cost more than a week!
Surely the day rate should be a little more than (week/5), eg about $175
- $200, to encourage those who only want/need
you are not allowed to register for two days.
/bill
On 10July2013Wednesday, at 9:01, Paul Aitken wrote:
Can you help me understand why the One Day Pass rate ($350) is so high
compared with the full week rate ($650 / $800)?
Registering for two days could cost more than a week!
Surely
The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and attendees
have always been encouraged to attend for the week. Allowing one day
passes is a recent phenomenon to which some people, including myself,
are on balance opposed.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake
On 07/10/2013 02:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and attendees
have always been encouraged to attend for the week. Allowing one day
passes is a recent phenomenon to which some people, including myself,
are on balance opposed.
I'm also of the
On 7/10/13 1:41 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 07/10/2013 02:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and attendees
have always been encouraged to attend for the week. Allowing one day
passes is a recent phenomenon to which some people, including myself,
Peter,
Thank you very much for your detailed review. And Murray, thanks for taking
into account the comments. FWIW, I plan to ballot No-Objection for this draft
based on the Gen-ART review (and my own far less detailed review).
Jari
On 11/07/2013 07:44, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/10/13 1:41 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 07/10/2013 02:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and attendees
have always been encouraged to attend for the week. Allowing one day
passes is a recent
--On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 14:50 -0400 Donald Eastlake
d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and
attendees have always been encouraged to attend for the week.
Allowing one day passes is a recent phenomenon to which some
people, including myself,
As someone who during iSCSI development attended just to attend that group, I
didn't find IETF to be single day attendance friendly and I don't think that
day passes change that substantially.
The main problem is that the final agenda isn't published until a little more
than 3 weeks before
On 07/10/2013 05:17 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
Day passes have nothing to do with it.
I disagree. Day passes encourage the notion that it's normal to
parachute into the IETF to attend a single session. I think that the
IETF's strength is that we don't totally compartmentalise work items.
I am
On 7/10/2013 11:59 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
The IAB has made a statement on dotless domains. You can find this statement
here:
http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-statement-dotless-domains-considered-harmful/
It's unfortunate that the IAB did not choose
is there a reason to not disclose who the individual participant is?
Scott
On Jul 10, 2013, at 5:39 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:
- RFC2050 from Best Current Practice to
On 7/10/2013 5:17 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
Day passes have nothing to do with it.
I disagree. Day passes encourage the notion that it's normal to
parachute into the IETF to attend a single session. I think that the
IETF's strength is that we don't totally compartmentalise work items.
I am
When we introduced the day passes, part of the discussion revolved
around the observation that some number of people (I don't think
this has ever been measured) attend for a day or less than a day
in order to participate in a specific working group session or even
just meet with other people.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 5:17 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
Day passes have nothing to do with it.
I disagree. Day passes encourage the notion that it's normal to
parachute into the IETF to attend a single session. I think that the
First, I wanted to agree with what Pat said:
While generally IETF is helped by cross pollination and multi-day attendance
is a good thing to encourage, there are times when the work of a particular
group is helped by the attendance of some subject matter experts who are only
interested in
Scott,
is there a reason to not disclose who the individual participant is?
No, but actually that text just came from the standard boilerplate for the last
call text in these cases. In reality has been several people asking for this to
be done, e.g., SM wrote a document about 2050 and a few
Hello all
We submitted two drafts to help people here to correctly call chinese
people names:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-call-chinese-names-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zcao-chinese-pronounce-00
Feel free to let us know if you have any other issues?
Best regards,
Sent from my iPad
On 2013-07-10, at 8:59 PM, Ida ida_le...@yahoo.com wrote:
One comment: I think most of the Chinese women don't change to our husband's
last name. So, my husband is not Mr Leung. We love to keep our own last
name.
...Ida
Sent from my iPad
On 2013-07-10, at
Hi Deng Hui,
At 17:04 10-07-2013, Hui Deng wrote:
We submitted two drafts to help people here to correctly call
chinese people names:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-call-chinese-names-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zcao-chinese-pronounce-00
I would like to thank you and your
On 7/10/2013 8:04 PM, Hui Deng wrote:
Hello all
We submitted two drafts to help people here to correctly call chinese
people names:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-call-chinese-names-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zcao-chinese-pronounce-00
Fantastic. Short and sweet!
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:55 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Hi Deng Hui,
At 17:04 10-07-2013, Hui Deng wrote:
We submitted two drafts to help people here to correctly call chinese
people names:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-call-chinese-names-00
A typo in draft-deng-call-chinese-names-00: Jiao4shao4 should be Jiao4shou4.
Cheers,
Shucheng LIU (Will)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hui Deng
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:05 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Regarding call Chinese names
Hello all
We
Hello,
At 11:59 10-07-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
The IAB has made a statement on dotless domains. You can find this
statement here:
http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-statement-dotless-domains-considered-harmful/
There was a report from the ICANN the
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification'
(draft-ietf-storm-iser-15.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the STORage Maintenance Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Martin Stiemerling and Spencer Dawkins.
A URL of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The 'acct' URI Scheme'
(draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-06.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Applications Area Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Barry Leiba and Pete Resnick.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:
- RFC2050 from Best Current Practice to Historic
The supporting document for this request can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-2050-to-historic/
The IESG plans to
30 matches
Mail list logo
