I write about IETF-related topics for a number of publications and websites.
Most IETF participants are incredibly helpful and responsive when I ask them
questions about the work they are doing, particularly authors of RFCs and I-Ds.
However, there are (infrequent) exceptions, usually
The alternative, IMO, is to have IETF participants who are employed by
industry companies such as Cisco and Microsoft viewed as official
representatives of their companies rather than as individual (and independent)
participants.
would the Cisco rep's opinion count the same as the rep for
Hi,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:20:26 -0400
I write about IETF-related topics for a number of publications and websites.
Most IETF participants are incredibly helpful and responsive when I ask them
questions about
I believe the reason many companies have interesting rules here is
experience from the past - when a person speaking to the press would have
his words interpreted as being a spokesman for their company, either
revealing things that were intended to be hidden or promising things the
company
RFC 2418, IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures, states:
Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than by
formal representatives of organizations.
I take that to mean that IETF activities are separate from employment
activities.
that's what it means.
Madame, Monsieur,
Vous recevez ce message car une personne de votre entourage
vous invite à visiter ce site : http://www.avenir-export.com
Ce site regroupe toutes les informations
sur l'exportation et la mobilité internationale
Si vous souhaitez mettre en place un partenariat avec notre site
Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would the Cisco rep's opinion count the same as the rep for Bill's
Bits-to-Go apartment-building-wide ISP?
If said rep from BB2G had accumulated cred with other IETF
participants, *YES*.
In fact, I would have a great deal of respect for someone who
Pete:
Since, I think, you post this due to my deferment
to the cisco PR folks let me put a few words in my
defense...
1) I always try to be helpful with technical questions. You
can look at both the sigtran and tsvwg archives to see that
I try to respond both publicly and privately on
Pete,
Great points. However, information within the IETF is open to all entities.
Therefore, a person or corporation is bound by the by laws to allow their
information to be used towards the greater good of the InterNet and to that
end all standards / data or open to everyone!
JT
-Original
Employers have the inherent option of forbidding any activities NOT related
to your conditions of employment. Now, I am new to the IETF announcement
list, and it was my impression, which I now concede was the wrong
impression, that I would be informed via Email of any new Internet Drafts.
While
As far as I can see, IETF participants are only bound by IETF rules
when they are participating in IETF activities.
Brian
*
* From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:20:26 -0400
*
* I write about IETF-related topics for a number of publications and websites.
* Most IETF participants are incredibly helpful and responsive when I
This message was send to the ietf Discussion list, if you would like more
information about the specific lists, go to
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html
-Mike
- Original Message -
From: James K. Murray (AMSS Mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Haisley [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nicolai Schlenzig
Very simply, the press has no right (that I know of) to demand that
anyone respond to press reporters' questions, though I suppose
reporters have the right to publish the fact that people will not
talk to them. Yet, even this seems to me to be out of bounds in most
cases, unless it is an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
RFC 2418, IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures, states:
Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than by
formal representatives of organizations.
I take that to mean that IETF activities are separate from employment
I once had an employer who made all of their employees sign a contract
stating any technical thing they do while employed by the company is owned
by the company, regardless of whether it was done on the employee's time
and in the employee's home, and the employee isn't allowed to print
articles
Please, IETF list is for technology and its development discussions, not
for complaint about spam or cheap politics.
Okay, I'd like to complain about the complaints about
the complaints. 1) They're messing with my worldview,
and 2) the traffic from them is exceeding the complaint
traffic,
Please, IETF list is for technology and its development discussions, not
for complaint about spam or cheap politics.
IMHO, you are mistaken.
- the issue of how to deal with spam on IETF lists is entirely relevant
to IETF business and therefore an appropriate topic for discussion
on
IMHO, you are mistaken.
- the issue of how to deal with spam on IETF lists is entirely relevant
to IETF business and therefore an appropriate topic for discussion
on the IETF list.
I agree in this point, but the way it was handled I think it was
innapropriate because of the people
It seems like a good idea to repeat this URL with a slightly more
apropos subject line:
http://www.pulver.com/hr1542
It looks like the ghost of Ma Bell, the U.S. Telecomm Association,
is going after IP telephony with a vengance, and politics that
probably include most of their annual
On Wed, 30 May 2001 16:09:43 EDT, Betty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails.
The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3.
Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails
sent out.
... Do I calculate return using an exponential curve or the S-shaped
logistics curve?
Since the number of respondents is not infinite at present, but is
theoretically unbounded over time, you have to use a sigmoid curve,
but not this logistical sigmoid:
Y = a + b / (1 + exp(-c*(X - d)))
22 matches
Mail list logo
