Hi all,
We're starting a discussion about the possibility of forming
an IPsec maintenance/extensions working group. If you're
interested, join the IPsec mailing list.
Joining the list:
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
List archive:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no
strawpoll, hum, or sense of the room was
James M Snell wrote:
My apologies for not getting back to this sooner.
No problem, it's only that the proposal to rename
the draft attracted my attention, and after I said
that this is dubious in a Last Call thread I read
the text, not only the file name... ;-)
All I know about BiDi issues
Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no
strawpoll, hum,
Eric
REALLY...
I heard during that BOF that there was consensus to start the work.
I also saw that quite a few liked the YANG proposal, and several
wanted to have mappings to either XSD or RELAX or DSDL.
The smaller meetings that happened after the NOF, included people
from all of the
I have had a number of conversations with i18n experts on the topic and
none have complained about it thus far... which, of course, doesn't mean
that much. I would very much appreciate having folks like Harald,
Martin and Tex weigh in on the issue.
Another comment that has come up is a
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:08:49 -0700,
Andy Bierman wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather,
Hi -
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
corresponding milestones) which
Greetings,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has
objected to this work from the very beginning, as far back as the first
attempt to get a BOF and
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:14:10 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
Eric
REALLY...
Yes, really.
I heard during that BOF that there was consensus to start the work.
I also saw that quite a few liked the YANG proposal, and several
wanted to have mappings to either XSD or RELAX or
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:00:53 +0200,
David Partain wrote:
Greetings,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has
objected to this work from the
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.06.57 Eric Rescorla wrote:
Perhaps that's true, but I don't see that that's an argument
against actually running an open process rather than declaring
a winner in advance and asking the IETF to ratify it.'
Hi,
There seems to be an underlying argument that we've
W.r.t.
All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so
you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus.
And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area
assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate to suggest
that this is anywhere as near as
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.01 Eric Rescorla wrote:
The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there
wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump
meetings where this compromise was hashed out.
Greetings,
And what will be gained by forcing us to jump
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
corresponding
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:53 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
W.r.t.
All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so
you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus.
And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area
assessment for WG formation, I
Eric,
instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF
(we all know that at this point in time we DO have
consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space,
albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further
(smaller) meetings, in extensive DT work after the IETF and
Well said Andy.
And I support the charter as well!
Bert Wijnen
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy
Bierman
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 23:14
Aan: Randy Presuhn
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Onderwerp: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling
Hi all,
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.03 Andy Bierman wrote:
IMO, there is strong community consensus for the charter as it
is currently written. There are several technical approaches,
such as 'continue to write data models in XSD' which are
technically viable, but have no community
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:16:02 +0200,
Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF
(we all know that at this point in time we DO have
consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space,
albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further
The IAOC is pleased to announce San Francisco as the site for IETF 74 from
22 March - 27 March 2009. The IETF last met in the city in 2003 at IETF
56.
Those who may be interested in hosting can find information at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/meetings.html and by contacting Drew Dvorshak at
[EMAIL
Hi -
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
of upsetting Eric
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals. We were told we could
Eric Rescorla wrote:
Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for
additional perspectives from those not already committed to a
particular path
Are they committed to doing the work?
Do they have their own constituency?
Since the topic is not new, where have they been and
Hi -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Are they committed to doing the work?
The bulk of the work has been
The IAOC is pleased to announce San Francisco as the site for IETF 74 from
22 March - 27 March 2009. The IETF last met in the city in 2003 at IETF
56.
Those who may be interested in hosting can find information at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/meetings.html and by contacting Drew Dvorshak at
[EMAIL
26 matches
Mail list logo
