Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
I find it amazing how many different ways there are to criticize DKIM
for not doing something it was never intended to do. DKIM is a small
building block that enables new functionality, but such functionality
is beyond the scope of DKIM.
Note: We have an advanced
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
during that time slot.
I was already planning to bring this up again in the IAB, but now that you
mention it
On 8/2/2011 6:35 AM, David Kessens wrote:
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries
and hold meetings during that time slot.
Original Message -
From: David Kessens david.kess...@nsn.com
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:49 PM
Russ,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
To: Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:36 AM
On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Not all IDs are discussed at the upcoming IETF. It is inconvenient to need
to delay an
- Original Message -
From: Nathaniel Borenstein n...@guppylake.com
To: Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
I find it amazing how many different ways there are to
I think John has the issue nailed. I think it would be easy to try to
eliminate the plenaries and then end up with a full Friday, anyway. I would
offer that it would be very difficult, however, to take a compressed Friday and
later add an afternoon to it. Thus, I am much more in favor of a
BTW, has anyone noticed the trend of doing more and more on the Sunday and
Saturday *before* IETF week?
Very much so.
Workshops, joint meetings, design teams...
In Prague, a good number of people started in Friday.
Nothing wrong with that, but it does put paid to the idea that the IETF is 4.5
On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
BTW, has anyone noticed the trend of doing more and more on the Sunday and
Saturday *before* IETF week?
Very much so.
Workshops, joint meetings, design teams...
In Prague, a good number of people started in Friday.
Nothing wrong with
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 08:05, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
OTOH, I have good reason to think that the application of more focus by WGs
during their meetings *could* reduce the pressure on the whole schedule.
Thus,
the perennial thread on not presenting drafts at WG meetings
On 02/Aug/11 06:52, Hector Santos wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Repeat as needed; you can always partition the remaining part of
the problem again.
It was not a difficult problem. [...] how to scale the
authorization of 3rd party signer. [...] But there was a
fundamental mindset and
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:27:55 -0700, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
said:
PH Or, (3), specify somewhere that the submission window opens at the
PH beginning of the meeting and allow WG chairs to decide what they
PH want to do about new drafts. In the case last week, the draft was
PH turned
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:28 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
It was not a difficult problem. [...] how to scale
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 16:38 -0500 Adam Roach
a...@nostrum.com wrote:
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against
this plan. By Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal
schedule. Pushing lunch back by 2 hours would pretty well on
guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP)
http://irtf.org/anrp
*** Submit nominations until August 28 for the ANRP for IETF-82,
*** November 13-18, 2011 in Taipei, Taiwan:
*** http://fit.nokia.com/anrp/82/
The Applied Networking
On 8/1/11 3:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
So I think this is a good idea if it is feasible... even though
my preference would be to go back to ending at noon (or 11:30 or
earlier) on Friday by getting more efficient about how we use
time earlier in the week and more selective about who and
On 01/08/2011, at 2:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
I've noticed that lots of people (myself often included) are
often sufficiently wasted by Friday morning to be largely
disfunctional (certainly less coherent than normal). I'm
prepared to believe that pushing back lunch would make it even
Peter,
A side benefit is that the IESG/IAB could have a lunch meeting on Friday
(as opposed to the current breakfast meeting) and cover all the hot
topics from the week (not the week minus Friday).
/psa
I agree with your point here, and add that the joint IAB/IESG Friday session
isn't only
Hi Phillip,
At 11:31 AM 8/1/2011, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Over the weekend I attempted to determine the rules for discussion
of drafts at IETF meetings and was surprised to discover that they
are not actually written down anywhere (other than on the meetings
page). As a result we appear to
Maurice Zenarosa
Technology Department
Lynwood Unified School District
ietf-requ...@ietf.org wrote:
If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription. To do so, go to
On 8/1/2011 8:41 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
In fairness to Hector, the functionality that he is complaining is missing was
part of the original working group charter.
please cite the text from the original charter that promises such work and, just
to be safe, please cite the current text
On 2011-08-03 05:45, Mark Nottingham wrote:
snip
... Some people will still doubtless complain.
/snip
Could we take this as the conclusion of this discussion?
I'm being serious. Tuning the schedule in the light of feedback
should be a constant concern, amd it will always be a balancing
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/1/2011 8:41 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
In fairness to Hector, the functionality that he is complaining is
missing was
part of the original working group charter.
please cite the text from the original charter that promises such work
and, just to be safe, please
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, the IRTF Report, IAB Report and RSOC Report could certainly be
made in the other plenary.
Or omitted entirely, since they are duplicative of data which would be better
communicated in writing.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hector Santos
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 2:33 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
We are perfectly aware you never believed in policy,
On 7/30/11 11:05 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It seems to me that this does two things, both small but
useful. 1) It makes a minor change in the advancement
procedures so that they are more reasonable. They may still
not be sufficiently reasonable to be used, but it improves
them, and thereby
On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Could we take this as the conclusion of this discussion?
+1
I'm being serious. Tuning the schedule in the light of feedback
should be a constant concern, amd it will always be a balancing act
between varying preferences among
On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com
wrote:
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even *was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns
something new
With mild apologies, I have retained John's text below because, even
though I come to a different conclusion, I thought it important to
retain for now. If folks choose to follow up on this, significant
trimming is recommended.
John, as far as I can tell there are three problems which various
It was once explained to me that a government agency that takes
information extraction seriously has several levels of testing for
language proficiency. For all (okay, maybe almost all, I do not have
the details) the languages they care about, the higher level testing
focuses on knowledge of
Well here we have a rule that seems to be codified so it has the exact
opposite of any rational effect.
Either don't have a cutoff at all or make it a requirement that all
materials be submitted in advance of the meeting.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:46 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Phillip,
On 8/2/11 8:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Either don't have a cutoff at all or make it a requirement that all
materials be submitted in advance of the meeting.
Personally, I think chairs should have the discretion to allow or
disallow discussion of documents submitted at any time, that
Several years ago, when submitting drafts became automated, we used to have
a hard cut-off and be unable to submit new drafts until after IETF.
That caused issues if discussions caused the desire to change/update drafts
during the meeting, then there was no way of having an easily accessible
On 8/1/2011 10:08 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even*was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns something
new every day.
But I meant it quite literally: a moderate/humble/etc. proposal for Friday
The IP over DVB (ipdvb) working group in the Internet Area is closed.
The group has published the specifications that it intended to develop,
and additional topics have not been found sufficiently interesting to
initiate new work. The mailing list will be kept open in case there is a
need to
The Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6) working group in the
Internet Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and
Ralph Droms.
The mailing list will remain active.
The SHIM6 working group has published its core set of specifications
some years ago, and recently
36 matches
Mail list logo
