sergeant-at-arms notice regarding IPR-related postings

Hi all, Just a kind reminder to the combatants on this list. There are several postings related to IPR issues, and they whould be done in a more appropriate exploder, as there is a specific WG chartered for that. See the details at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html. Thanks in

Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

Hi. Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months between meetings? Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG agreed on an I-D posting deadline about a week before IETF began, in the hope of getting all submitted drafts posted before WGs needed them for review and discussion.

Can't find docs on MPLS Section 10b

for label swapping between providers. Our architecture group is talking about using 10a versus 10b label swapping, and I'm trying to find references on what this is and how it affects our backbone core network. I've searched the IETF database, IESG, and vendors such as cisco.com, and can find

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a John filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the John appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or John

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

John Good rant! I agree with each of your concerns, and ask too for discussion on what was brought up in your message. At 09:02 AM 10/18/2004 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. Summary: Four weeks? When we sometimes run only three months between meetings? Some years ago, the secretariat and IESG

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a John filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the John appropriate WG

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

Dont have a lot to add to the already nicely articulated comments below from John. However, I would like to know why this IETF meeting in DC is scheduled so soon after the last one - barely 3 months from the last one. Added to this, the dead-lines for the drafts are more conservative, leaving

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

Hi John, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snipped some text] I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the actual document. This can be done as

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

Henrik, I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it illustrates the problem. See below. --On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion of these proposals/plans with the

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the Secretariat and discussed with the community-- about how

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Pyda == Pyda Srisuresh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pyda Dont have a lot to add to the already nicely articulated Pyda comments below from John. However, I would like to know why Pyda this IETF meeting in DC is scheduled so soon after the last

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- scott == scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From: Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF) or me (representing the OSI); between us I believe we can speak for over 95% of the community. I hate it when elected politicans presume to

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In fact, the *only* way to do open source is without this distinction. I actually wish it were otherwise, but my wishes have no effect on the logic of the situation. Why do you say that? Because trying to make a distinction between commercial and

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Think harder. The problem with area-of-application rules is isomorphic to the commercial/noncommercial problem. The really nasty cases are near service libraries. Maybe you should spell this out. For example, service libraries need not be a problem.

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks Personally I'd actually prefer 10 days, but two weeks is much better then 4 weeks and is a reduction of no-draft-can-be-published time from 30% to 15%. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 20:20 -0400 scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, scott bradner wrote: If your reduce the load enough that things can be gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or the

help

how can I unsubscribe the mail list? I try three times, but not sucessfully. Best Regards Huagang Shao Ph.D. Candidate Department of Computer Science Engineering, ShangHai Jiaotong University 1954 Huashang Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200030, China Tel: +86-13764308303 e-Mail: [EMAIL

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Eric == Eric S Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: isomorphic to the commercial/noncommercial problem. The really nasty cases are near service libraries. Maybe you should spell this out. For example, service libraries need not

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

From: Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's been no plebiscite, of course. However, web content analyses and surveys of the licenses used at sites like SourceForge and ibiblio paint a pretty consistent picture of who developers consider the authorities on licensing and IPR best

Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done

Hi John, John C Klensin wrote: Henrik, I'm aware of the tools team proposal. But I claim it illustrates the problem. See below. Yes, I thought you were - and I agree - continued below. --On Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 01:03 +0200 Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I don't have any

Document Action: 'Domain Name System Media Types' to Informational RFC

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Domain Name System Media Types ' draft-josefsson-mime-dns-02.txt as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie.

Protocol Action: 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax' to Full Standard

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax ' draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07.txt as a Full Standard This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie.