The IESG has received a request from the IP Telephony WG (iptel) to
consider the following document:
- 'The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry '
draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
All,
The Trustees of the IETF Trust are considering changing the Trust
administrative procedures and seek community comment before doing so.
The Trustees propose to take action at its April 17th meeting and will
consider all comments received by that date.
The proposed changes would:
1.
Ray,
Some observations...
(1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is
willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit
provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or
willingness to sign has to be an explicit condition for
membership in the IAOC. Since
John:
(2) Because some members of the IAOC are appointed by (or
ex-officio from) other bodies, I would prefer that, if there is
going to be a separate Trust Chair, that person be required to
be an IETF appointee and subject to recall. No matter how many
the Chair is nothing special rules one
John,
On 2008-04-04 09:54, John C Klensin wrote:
Ray,
Some observations...
(1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is
willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit
provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or
willingness to sign has to be an
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
Ray
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
Ray
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of
who was in the room which I think is largely used to plan room
capacities for the next meeting. There may be other procedural aspects
such as measuring consensus, but it seems to me that this can all be
done without the need
That assumes that every attendee is representing a company, which is
certainly not
always true.
Regards
Marshall
On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
Could you replace it by the name of the company the attendee work for?
- Alain.
On 4/3/08 7:16 PM, Ray Pelletier [EMAIL
Ole guessed
My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of
who was in the room which I think is largely used to plan room
capacities for the next meeting.
the blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness
process in a standards organization - there is a need
At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:22:42 +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote:
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
Ray
I thought it was for the same reasons that Scott suggested, to tell
who was in the room and the emails served the purpose for handling
consensus calls on the list, and ensuring any 'nasty' IPR supprises as
well.
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am disturbed that the messy situation of X- headers,
created by RFC 2822's silence on the subject, has
not been fixed.
See http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/klensin-response.txt
for an example of the issues that this silence can
create.
I believe it would be appropriate to document that
On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I would say not.
If people want to harvest our email addresses, they are readily
available from IETF mail archives, which have
the advantage of actually being machine readable.
I do not see that any change is required in the blue
On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:10 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
Ole guessed
My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of
who was in the room which I think is largely used to plan room
capacities for the next meeting.
the blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness
that would test something but I'm not sure you could isolate the spam-fear
factor
Scott
---
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:44:47 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott O. Bradner)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change
At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:42:53 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
That assumes that every attendee is representing a company, which is
certainly not
always true.
IETF badges already ask for company afiliation, so at least we'd be
being consistant in our silliness.
I still have fond memories of
the process you describe has happend in recent memory at more than
one IETF. it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
--bill
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 08:10:12PM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
Ole guessed
My understanding is that the blue sheet
Please see my comments in the attachment.
Bill Atwood
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast
WG (pim) to consider the following document:
- 'Format for using TLVs in PIM messages '
draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-03.txt as a Proposed
Could you replace it by the name of the company the attendee work for?
- Alain.
On 4/3/08 7:16 PM, Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ray Pelletier wrote:
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
No.
I have no objection to the change, though I'd make it in the interest
of streamlining the blue sheet process rather than to avoid spam. The
faster one can deal with the blue sheet, the less likely
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Eric Rescorla
At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:22:42 +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote:
It's is the only unique token on the blue sheets. This
assumes no shared email accounts which is a pretty
Eric Burger wrote:
2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get
served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was
discussed.
This is sufficient reason, for me, to keep recording unique contact
information,
namely the email address.
The
Surely there must be easier ways to get email addresses.
John
Sent from my Nokia N96.
-original message-
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dave Crocker
Eric Burger wrote:
2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get
served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was
discussed.
This is
Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 4 00:53:01 EDT 2008
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.67% |8 | 14.03% | 144590 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7.80% | 11 | 8.15% |83942 | [EMAIL
--On Friday, 04 April, 2008 11:39 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
On 2008-04-04 09:54, John C Klensin wrote:
Ray,
Some observations...
(1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is
willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Internet Message Format '
draft-resnick-2822upd-06.txt as a Draft Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send
28 matches
Mail list logo
