Based on the conversation below I converged to:
t
While less mature specifications will usually be published as
Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in exceptional
cases, publish a specification that still contains areas for
improvement or certain
On 16 sep. 2013, at 17:31, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
As actionable for this draft I take that I explicitly mention
that Section 4.1 2026 is exclusively updated.
While I understand your desire to keep this short, the pragmatic
reality is that your non-IETF audience is likely
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Based on the conversation below I converged to:
t
While less mature specifications will usually be published as
Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in exceptional
cases, publish a
On 17/09/2013 11:32, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl
mailto:o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Based on the conversation below I converged to:
t
While less mature specifications will usually be published as
On Sep 17, 2013 6:33 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Based on the conversation below I converged to:
t
While less mature specifications will usually be published as
Informational or
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:47 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Based on the conversation below I converged to:
t
While less mature specifications will usually be
published as Informational or Experimental RFCs, the
IETF may, in exceptional
On 17 September 2013 00:19, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any real downside to allowing
people who have ORCIDs to put them in IETF documents. I'm not
sure there's a lot of demand for them (this is the first time
it's come up, as far as I know) but I don't see a
On 9/17/13 3:56 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Thank you. So how might we raise awareness of ORCID among RfC
contributors and and encourage its use by them?
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the
On 17 September 2013 13:07, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.
Thank you. Is Heather on this list?
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:32 +0100 Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.net wrote:
I read John's message as being against the use of the phrase
in exceptional cases. I would also like to avoid that; it
suggests that some exceptional argument may have to be made,
and has the implication
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Glen Wiley glen.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion highlights the importance of making sure that hardware
vendors understand the need for working clocks that can be easily
bootstrapped. In addition to NTP radio clock receivers are ubiquitous,
tiny and
Heather Flanagan can be most easily reached at
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, the specified email address for reaching the
rfc-editor.
Note however that you need to be clear as to what you are asking her.
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools to include provision
for using ORCHIDs, that
+1 Thank you for your input. Seems to me to be a conflict of
interest issue. I support the basic concept but why not use a IETF
registry instead? Solves several of the conflict of interest
concerns, including about 3rd party entities disappearing, losing
support, etc.
--
HLS
On 9/17/2013
Hi. I agree completely with Joel, but let me add a bit more
detail and a possible alternative...
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 08:56 -0400 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools
to include provision for using ORCHIDs, that is a
I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate of
orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
I agree with what Joel wrote:
Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF endorsement
are two very different
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 22:28 -0400 John R Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I do have an identical twin brother, and hashing the DNA
sequence collides more regularly than either random or
MAC-based interface-identifiers in IPv6.
Also, he doesn't have the same opinions.
Clearly,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Are we far enough down this rathole?
john
I'm not sure. Which John are you again? The car-buying psychiatric composer
who lives in Edinburgh, Georgia?
From 29 years experience in ATIS, CCITT, CEPT, ETSI, IETF, ITU, TIA and
other standards organizations and extensive experience with standards that
do have associated IPR it is apparent that asking for confirmation at
multiple points in the standards development process IS necessary.
For example:
Hi Ben,
I apologize for the delay in responding. I had initially missed this
review - it either got cached directly with gen-art reviews or the tools
alias burped. I'm not on the main IETF list with this email address.
Anyways, thank you very much for your thorough review. Our responses are
Roni
Thank you for the review
My responses below prepended with [AA]
Andrew
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:35 AM
To: draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART IETF LC review
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 -0400 Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate
of orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
I agree with what Joel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF endorsement
are two very different things.
Having tool support for it is a necessary first step to permitting IETF
contributors to gain experience with it. We need that experience before
FYI.
I just posted the third version of the draft at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02
Diff with the previous document:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02.txt
I will let Jari know that I believe we converged
On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate of
orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
I agree with what Joel wrote:
Asking for ORCID
I'm in agreement.
We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of
contact information. For example, my contact information for the April 1, 1995
RFC 1776 is:
Steve Crocker
CyberCash, Inc.
2086 Hunters Crest Way
Vienna, VA 22181
Phone: +1 703
Given this comment in John Levin's post: PS: Now that I think about it, you
can already put in a personal URL
in rfc2xml, so if someone wants to use an ORCID URL, they can do so
right now. it seems like there isn't any need to change the schema.
-Original Message-
From:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Pat Thaler ptha...@broadcom.com wrote:
Given this comment in John Levin's post: PS: Now that I think about it, you
can already put in a personal URL
in rfc2xml, so if someone wants to use an ORCID URL, they can do so
right now. it seems like there isn't any
On 9/17/13 9:55 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
... and that is my point. One level of indirection might be useful here.
I would prefer to update only one mapping and not go through a list
of RFCs and change the mapping for each document.
I really think that you all are completely over-engineering
Hi.
I somehow missed the genart review and Stewart kindly forwarded me a
copy
I will shortly be publishing a new version that includes fixes discussed
below.
genart == Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com writes:
genart Major issues:
genart None.
genart Minor issues:
genart
On Sep 17, 2013, at 19:37, Michael Tuexen michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de
wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.
+1.
(Remarkably, all the RFCs I co-authored show the same email
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.
The email address associated with the draft, for example
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
I'm in agreement.
We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of
contact information. For example, my contact information for the April 1,
1995 RFC 1776 is:
Steve Crocker
CyberCash,
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another
On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/13 9:55 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
... and that is my point. One level of indirection might be useful here.
I would prefer to update only one mapping and not go through a list
of RFCs and change the mapping for
On 9/17/13 11:14 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
For example
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3237.txt
has 7 authors. I know that at least 4 affiliations have changed
and at least you can't reach me anymore via the given e-mail
address or telephone number.
This is not the problem ORCID addresses, except
On Sep 17, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/13 11:14 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
For example
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3237.txt
has 7 authors. I know that at least 4 affiliations have changed
and at least you can't reach me anymore via the given e-mail
Is it just me, or does this sentence now seem like hubris?
In fact, the IETF review
is more extensive than that done in other SDOs owing to the cross-
area technical review performed by the IESG, a position that is
further strengthened by the common presence of interoperable running
On 9/17/2013 8:07 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.
What would the ORCID reference look like? My understanding is
On 9/17/13 1:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the
IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as
IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish Academic papers.
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael
Yes, you can do this using RDFa [1] into HTML tags. If Dr. Krafft had
used RDFa so his page:
a. Will be a entry point and used as SPARQL[2] queries. This entry point
will be found in his contribuition to, or participation in the IETF
(e.g. in the Attendance List of the IETF meetings).
b. Could be
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the
On 9/17/2013 3:24 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/17/13 11:14 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
For example
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3237.txt
has 7 authors. I know that at least 4 affiliations have changed
and at least you can't reach me anymore via the given e-mail
address or telephone number.
This
On 9/17/2013 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of
our participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a
few publish Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places
would be useful, and
On 17/09/2013 17:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi John,
At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't
want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them),
things are getting to the point that it takes far too much
energy to
On 9/17/13 11:27 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I just posted the third version of the draft at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02
I would like to change IESG to IETF in five places:
Section 1:
the IESG has evolved its review processes
Section 2:
IESG
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always
1/ I believe that change would be factually incorrect
2/ I do not see that being factually correct about what happened says anything
about
the community opinion about any future IESG decision to change processes.
Scott
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
On 9/17/13 5:52 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
I would like to change IESG to IETF in five places:
Section 1:
the IESG has evolved its review processes
Section 2:
IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards
the IESG
On 18/09/2013 09:11, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/17/13 1:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the
IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as
IEEE, W3C, ITU,
Pete,
I generally agree with your changes and consider them important
-- the IESG should be seen in our procedural documents as
evaluating and reflecting the consensus of the IETF, not acting
independently of it.
Of the various places in the document in which IESG now
appears, only one of them
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of
our
participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a
few publish
Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places would be
useful, and
that single identifier is not going to
It's practically essential for academics whose career depends on
attribution of publications and on citation counts (and for the
people who hire or promote them).
Gee, several of the other John Levines have published way more than I
have. If what we want is citation counts, confuse away.
R's,
Currently, IETF standards activity carries little or no weight for an
academic career profile. It doesn't appear to have a weighting compared to
peer review publication. I think this is a shame, because the contribution
is as substantive, if not more so. And, since time is limited and choices
have
Checking out the ORCID site, I noticed that when manually adding a
work, one of the possible external IDs is Request for Comments. So
they certainly seem to be aware of the RFC series. The site already
has the ability to search various external databases to automate the
process of adding works,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:14 AM, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
Currently, IETF standards activity carries little or no weight for an
academic career profile. It doesn't appear to have a weighting compared to
peer review publication. I think this is a shame, because the contribution
The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'RPKI-Based Origin Validation Operation'
draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-21.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
The IESG has completed a review of draft-pfaff-ovsdb-proto-03 consistent
with RFC5742.
The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The Open vSwitch
Database Management Protocol' draft-pfaff-ovsdb-proto-03.txt as an
Informational RFC.
The IESG has concluded that this work is related to
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions'
(draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-04.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and
88th IETF Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada
November 3-8, 2013
Host: Huawei
Meeting venue: Hyatt Regency Vancouver:
http://vancouver.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html
Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/88/
1. Registration
2. Visas Letters of Invitation
3. Accommodations
4. Companion
The IESG has completed a review of draft-dolmatov-gost34102012-00
consistent with RFC5742.
The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'GOST R 34.10-2012:
Digital Signature Algorithm' draft-dolmatov-gost34102012-00.txt as an
Informational RFC.
The IESG has concluded that there is no
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7025
Title: Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE
Author: T. Otani, K. Ogaki,
D. Caviglia, F. Zhang,
C. Margaria
Status:
62 matches
Mail list logo
