On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 12:57 PM, Eric Rosen wrote:
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
timely
standards for the Internet.
It is important that this is For the Internet, and does not include
everything that happens to use IP. IP is being used in a
Simon Woodside;
Yes, and towards a possibly more contentious application, see Voice over
IP. Lots of VoIP work is being done without involving the internet at
all. Used by telecoms for telecoms applications, where best effort
isn't good enough because it needs to keep working when the power
From: Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Sheesh!--next you'll be telling us that you never heard the phrase
out of scope before last week.
Sure I have. There's hardly a piece of work done by the IETF that someone
hasn't claimed to be out of scope. It's just that the phrase is not
Scoping is certainly used successfully as an argument at the WG level,
through the more common pronnouncement that would require a change
to the charter.. Scoping aids WGs in being able to move the ball
forward in the direction of predfined goals, and hence is a process aid.
This is
The example I'm thinking about involved predecessors to OpenGL.
As this example doesn't even involve communication over a network, I would
agree that it is out of scope. ...
[OpenGL example]
It's not that other examples such as X couldn't have used more network knowledge to
avoid problems
From: Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
If out of scope were removed as an acceptable reason to not do things,
then you would never squelch bad efforts.
An effort isn't bad because it's out of scope. An effort is bad because
it's bad, and we invest our faith in the IESG that they will
Vernon,
I'm not much for mission statements either. But it's easy to fall into
a Dilbert view of the world, even when such things might actually help.
I think the intent is to derive from some community consensus on goals
how to evolve the organization. And we are at a crossroads. Either we
In addition to the Newcomer's training and the security tutorial, the
IETF sunday training schedule for Minneapolis will include two new
sessions.
The first covers the editor's role in working with the WG and in
producing RFCs. This is a completely new course. The session is open
to both
Avri,
Some quick questions -
Are these RSVP meetings ?
Can I forward this to my WG mailing list and suggest participation to
people that are interested ??? (ie. How big is the room you are
reserving ?)
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Hi Bill,
Are these RSVP meetings ?
Can I forward this to my WG mailing list and suggest participation to
people that are interested ??? (ie. How big is the room you are
reserving ?)
No RSVPs are required.
All of the rooms will hold 100 or more people. Given previous
attendance at
So far, DNSSEC doesn't solve this problem. I don't think the reverse DNS
problem is intended to be solved by DNSSEC.
Quick poll: Does anyone actually think that DNS can be made globably
invulnerable, and positively trusted, yet usable?
DNSSEC won't solve a number of problems of intentional
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, mark seery wrote:
Trust model
=
Inherent in Eric's problem statement is the notion that end systems have
the ability to impact the experience other Internet users have. Whether
this is the result of an historical trust model, where people using the
Internet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dean Anderson wrote:
So far, DNSSEC doesn't solve this problem. I don't think the
reverse DNS problem is intended to be solved by DNSSEC.
IMHO reverse is just the same as ordinary domains.
Where DNS is a phonebook for internet name mappings.
Quick
The gist of this comment is that someone developing a network
application protocol ought to somehow get a blessing from the IETF.
Reality check. Who got the IETF approval to deploy ICQ, Kazaa, or for
that matter HTTP?
The fact that someone did something without the IETF's approval does
According to you, this has nothing to do with the IETF. It might
result
in the congestive collapse of the Internet, but who cares, the IETF
doesn't do street lights. I would like to see the criteria
which
determine that telephones belong on the Internet but street lights
since both you and Scott pointed out this one
--On 15. oktober 2003 12:48 -0400 Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant,
and timely standards for the Internet.
I actually believe IETF has a somewhat wider purpose than that.
--On 16. oktober 2003 13:15 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- For the Internet - only the stuff that is directly involved in
making the Internet work is included in the IETF's scope.
In other words, routing, DNS, and Internet operations/management.
Adopting this as the IETF's
Christian,
we might be looking through opposite ends of this tunnel.
--On 16. oktober 2003 15:15 -0700 Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this point is one of the critical causes of conflict when
talking
about the IETF mission - and unless we lance the boil, actually talk
18 matches
Mail list logo
