Hi John,
At 09:49 20-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
post-expiration. I think that, as a community, we ought to
respect those assumptions more than saying, effectively, we are
going to maintain a public archive no matter what commitments
you thought were made to you because we can and because we
On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:22, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time
had been expired for a year.
The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be).
Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file
(My problem was not that draft expiry makes the process more complicated, but
that the chairs didn't notice the expiry and I can't blame them.)
Well, the system does send out automatic reminders (entitled Expiration
Impending: draft-foo) to all authors and copied to the WG chairs.
So not
On 9/18/12 8:45 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has some complaints; please check.
They were checked.
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
It does.
-- section 2.1, 2nd paragraph: The character encoding format of maildrops may not
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
It does.
Sorry. You said abstract, not intro. Got it.
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
On 09/21/2012 10:44 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract,
that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
It does.
Sorry. You said
[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract,
that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
The IESG
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/21/2012 10:44 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract, that
On 9/21/2012 8:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/18/12 8:45 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:abstract should mention that this
obsoletes 5721
It does.
Stylistic point: RFCs last a long time. Including ephemeral
information can be distracting, especially in the Abstract. 5 and 10
years from now,
Hi Carsten,
At 06:11 21-09-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Actually, in this case I'd rather have the author resubmit, just to
make sure not only the rest of the WG, but also the author continues
to like the draft...
(But I'm not chair for this WG.)
It's better if the author resubmits the
Thanks for the response!
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[...]
-- same paragraph : The UTF8 command MAY fail.
Under what circumstances? (this seems sort of tacked onto the
paragraph--does it belong there?)
AFAICT, it is simply a warning to
On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10
I believe that the IETF has all of the necessary rights to reproduce,
distribute, and display publicly all Internet-Drafts. Here is my analysis:
In RFC 1310, March 1992, the IAB describes Internet-Drafts, but
it does not define the rights that contributors grant. As best I can
determine, the
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that
have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able
to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order
to do so. That said, the IESG firmly believes that the
Hi, Russ,
FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues:
1) all the IDs before March 1994
which should not be published at all until
permission is given (opt-in)
2) all the IDs published before boilerplate inclusion was required
the IETF cannot merely
On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the
Looks good to me.
Jari
Overall I like this--enough wiggle-room to deal with situations we cannot
foresee now, but still sufficient guidance for the IESGs to come. One
small issue, inline.
Stephan
On 9.21.2012 13:45 , IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
[...]
When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy
--On Friday, September 21, 2012 15:25 -0500 Ben Campbell
b...@estacado.net wrote:
It's certainly useful to some folks. Necessary? (*Shrug*) Not
enough wasted bits for me to care one way or the other.
As a Gen-ART reviewer, I called it out for exactly the reasons
Pete mentions, and care
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court.
These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top.
--Paul Hoffman
On 9/21/2012 2:48 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court.
These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top.
It was an observation, not a threat (at all).
No analysis of legal
Joe,
While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top. Specifically...
--On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch
--On Thursday, September 20, 2012 15:03 -0500 Ben Campbell
b...@nostrum.com wrote:
Hi,
Email discussion about the simple downgrade draft made me
think of a concern that I think I failed to mention in my
review. In particular, the tunneling mechanism allows the
creation of several new
On 9/21/2012 4:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Joe,
While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top. Specifically...
--On
On 9/21/2012 1:45 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that
have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able
to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order
to do so. That
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the
regular 6-month timeout.
Can't the author replace the repository version at any
On 9/21/2012 6:41 PM, David Morris wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the
regular 6-month timeout.
Can't the author
On 09/22/2012 03:25 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
...
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the
abstract, that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
The IESG put this into the nits check before my time. The Last Call
OPSEC, SIDR and V6OPS Interim Meeting
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
29 September 2012
Venue: Hotel Okura Amsterdam (www.okura.nl)
Ferdinand Bolstraat 333
1072 LH Amsterdam
The Netherlands
1. Registration
2. Accommodations - Reservations Cutoff: 21 September
3. Meeting Schedule
1.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding'
(draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-06.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Transport Area. For
additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG
Chairs.
RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques (rmcat)
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Chairs:
Lars
31 matches
Mail list logo
