What did you think of Pete Resnick's draft about hums.
i like it a lot and have used it in other fora which are somewhat loose
or confused about consensus.
randy
On 8/4/13 4:41 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:25 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
wrote:
First, probably to the when meetings begin part, but noting that
someone who gets onto the audio a few minutes late is in exactly
the same situation as someone who walks into the
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote:
I don't want to promise too much, but in time for Vancouver I'll
probably finish some code that sends you all sorts of helpful
information when you join the jabber room. There is a standardized room
subject message but
On 08/05/2013 10:07 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
One such hoop might be acknowledging the (privately sent) Note Well message
(thus equating XEP-0045 Participant with IETF Participant to some degree).
Another might be that we tell them to go away if their XEP-0054 vCard
doesn't include sufficient
At 13:10 04-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the
slides 1 week in advance?
One generation's bad behavior becomes the next generation's best
practice. It would be appreciated if those slides could be made
available in advance.
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in the
IETF). I'm told that it's easier for non-native English speakers to read
slides than to
On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote:
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in
the IETF). I'm told that it's easier for
On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Chris Griffiths cgriffi...@gmail.com wrote:
IETF Community,
The IETF Trust Trustees would like feedback from the community on several
issues:
- We have received requests that we cannot accommodate and have
consulted legal counsel to review our options
On Monday, August 5, 2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote:
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in
On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
I hope folks who invest effort in tooling try to make it all
easier and not harder. Right now we don't have good tools that
allow remote folks to easily provide live input (and maybe
that's just because its a hard
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak multiple times at the
mic on one of the RAI working group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I
recall). I was
On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak multiple times at the
mic on one of the RAI
On 08/05/13 07:51, Yoav Nir allegedly wrote:
On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak
I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into
the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications.
I don't think majority in IETF think it is meaningless so that is why I
want to clarify the meaning and discuss what most may not want to discuss.
If
On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:26 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 13:10 04-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't
normative. Even
I do not have the agenda two weeks in advance.
Huh. Sounds like a WG Chair problem. I believe draft
If one or two people are doing most of the posting to a list, that means
something is out of balance. Summary statistics can be used as an
indicator that something should be done to encourage diversity, or get
people back on topic, etc.
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document:
On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into
the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications.
It's just a weekly posting summary of raw stats - it's not a
On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Does the community feel these are reasonable reasons to update the trust
agreement?
The answer to that question is: yes. It seems reasonable to open up the
agreement in order to fulfill its purpose in reasonable,
+1
Tobias Gondrom
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Does the community feel these are reasonable reasons to update the
trust agreement?
The answer to that question is: yes. It seems reasonable to open up
the
Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com quoted Hadiel really poorly,
which confused me as you who said this, but I think it was Hadriel now:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the
slides 1 week in advance?
1) As a WG chair, I'd like to see the slides
On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:29 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
As
far as CC is concerned, I'm not persuaded that it meets out need
but not persuaded that it would cause great harm for
non-standards documents either.
At the risk of opening up the paint cabinet inside the bike shed: what
On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Chris Griffiths cgriffi...@gmail.com wrote:
IETF Community,
The IETF Trust Trustees would like feedback from the community on several
issues:
- We have received requests that we cannot
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Thanks for the careful explanations.
I'll second that; it does seem that some tweaking may be in order.
Clearly the Trust shouldn't have blanket permission to abandon or
dispose of assets
When the time comes to draft
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:31 + Ted Lemon
ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
If you came to the IETF and were working for company X,
registered pseudonymously, and didn't disclose IPR belonging
to you or company X, and then later company X sued someone for
using their IPR, you and
Hi SM, thanks for your comments. I'm shepherding the document, so replies
inline:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
According to Section 1, the Registration Data Access Protocol is a Lookup
Format,
JSON Responses and HTTP usage. This looks like a weird protocol
Hi.
I seem to have missed a lot of traffic since getting a few
responses yesterday. I think the reasons why slides should be
available well in advance of the meeting have been covered well
by others. And, as others have suggested, I'm willing to see
updates to those slides if things change in
At 12:38 PM 8/5/2013, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
I seem to have missed a lot of traffic since getting a few
responses yesterday. I think the reasons why slides should be
available well in advance of the meeting have been covered well
by others. And, as others have suggested, I'm willing to see
On 06/08/2013 03:11, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Thanks for the careful explanations.
I'll second that; it does seem that some tweaking may be in order.
Clearly the Trust shouldn't have blanket permission to abandon or
On 08/05/2013 12:31 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
but at least one anonymous jabber participant (named Guest) did
remotely speak multiple times at the mic on one of the RAI working
group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I recall). I was
personally ok with it, but it was awkward.
Ah. I
--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 02:06 +0100 Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
On 08/05/2013 06:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
The reasons to discourage anonymity aren't just patent
nonsense (although that should be sufficient and I rather
like the pun).
Thanks. The pun
On Aug 4, 2013, at 2:20 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I also note that the 1 week cutoff that Michael suggests would,
in most cases, eliminate had no choice without impeding WG
progress as an excuse. A week in advance of the meeting, there
should be time, if necessary to find
The IESG has received a request from the STORage Maintenance WG (storm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP: RFC 3723 Requirements Update
for IPsec v3'
draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-03.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Problem Statement: Overlays for Network Virtualization'
(draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-04.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Network Virtualization Overlays
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
The JOSE wg will hold a one hour virtual interim meeting on:
Monday, 19 August 2013 at 2300 UTC (1900 EDT, 1600 PDT)
A detailed agenda and webex instructions will follow on the jose mailing
list.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/maillist.html
The JSON Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on Wednesday August
21, 2013, at 1500 UTC. It will last for up to three hours. The agenda will be
published soon, but it will basically be how to incorporate the topics that are
now active on the list into the main document.
(FWIW,
36 matches
Mail list logo
