Randy,
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i started the thread on nanog. i am not sure abha or jon would want to
be on such a list. remember them and honor and carry on their work,
don't memorialize them.
I fully agree with you. However, unfortunately, a few
Folks,
Some follow-up to various postings.
We have long-established a pattern of taking a moment at IETF Plenaries
to note a community loss. My feeling is that something of this sort,
which is worth doing in a plenary, is worth recording for longer term.
Our world is increasingly ephemeral;
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
i am not sure abha or jon would want to be on such a list. remember
them and honor and carry on their work, don't memorialize them.
I hear you, but I am also mindful of human nature - and people often
(usually?) tend to be startlingly non-conversant
On Oct 21, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i started the thread on nanog. i am not sure abha or jon would want to
be on such a list. remember them and honor and carry on their work,
don't memorialize them.
With all respect, it is not just about the person, it is about their work, its
If this memorial wiki page could be open to anyone who ever contributed
to any I* and for whom there was at least one person who wanted to
contribute the information, then fine. If not, then it would be yet
another situation where there will be a line between the in-crowd and
the out-crowd.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:35:28AM -0400, Dave Crocker wrote:
some/many/most, but not for all. As an example, how will we feel
about having the list contain the names of sockpuppets that have
been active in the IETF?
This question nicely identifies why the proposal makes me so
uncomfortable,
On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Pelletier Ray rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
On Oct 21, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i started the thread on nanog. i am not sure abha or jon would want to
be on such a list. remember them and honor and carry on their work,
don't memorialize them.
With
Having Dave Crocker or Paul Hoffman or Randy Bush being the IETF
Memorial Editor is simply not a good idea.
i do not want to be an editor. and, when it is my turn, i do not want
to be memorialized.
we struggle to do a half-assed job at editing technology. we are
amazingly unqualified to edit
It is quite common for technical societies (and, I assume, other professional
associations) to note the passing of their members and contributors to their
field. For many, the IETF is the closest thing they have to such a society and
it is a key part of their professional and sometimes personal
i started the thread on nanog. i am not sure abha or jon would want to
be on such a list. remember them and honor and carry on their work,
don't memorialize them.
With all respect, it is not just about the person, it is about their work,
its importance, the history of this Internet and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/22/12 9:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
In private I have received messages that can be summarized as: If
you make such a page, please do not put me on it. These messages
came from sources that clearly belong on such a page if it
exists.
At 11:42 AM +0100 10/19/12, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Warning: this message was generated by Apple Mail.
But not using Format=Flowed.
On 16 Oct 2012, at 03:46, Randall Gellens ra...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
At 9:12 AM -0400 9/5/12, Michael Richardson {quigon} wrote:
Maybe I'm also
Good plan!
Sent from my iPad
On 21 okt. 2012, at 18:32, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Folks,
A thread on the nanog list, about abha ahuja, reminds me of a suggestion I
made casually to a few folk after the last IETF meeting:
We should consider having a persistent IETF page
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-13
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: Oct-19-2012
IETF LC End Date: Oct-22-2012
IESG Telechat
On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Peter Yee pe...@akayla.com wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-13
Reviewer: Peter
Chuck,
Ranges include the 0,255 that appears commonly in the document in
attribute definitions along with one case of -2147483648,2147483647.
Kind regards,
-Peter
On 10/21/12 3:27 PM, Chuck Lever chuck.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Peter
+1
Better not to start a tradition which will become an intolerable
encumbrance even before we do!
On 21 October 2012 18:10, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
I feel a little bad saying this, because these individuals deserve
recognition. But I rather think this memorial page is
some/many/most, but not for all. As an example, how will we feel
about having the list contain the names of sockpuppets that have
been active in the IETF?
This question nicely identifies why the proposal makes me so
uncomfortable, and why I don't think I can support it, however much I
think
Hi Noah,
On 18/10/2012 02:25, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
On 10/17/2012 7:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yeah. Turns out we (the Web standards community) haven't been doing
such a
great job of making our specificatiosn match reality.:-(
Um, true... but it's also the case that the implementation
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:25:47AM -0400, Dave Crocker wrote:
The proposal I posted offered specific roles and types of activity
that would qualify. It also asked some targeted questions.
As I guess I suggested, I believe the idea that the objectivity is
going to last is just wishful thinking.
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
If we want to keep this in the spirit of long-established
(newspaper) traditions rather than a web page, we could use the
IETF Journal for recording the passing of members of the community.
This seems reasonable and fitting for all qualifications.
--
HLS
From: Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu
If this memorial wiki page could be open to anyone who ever contributed
to any I* and for whom there was at least one person who wanted to
contribute the information, then fine.
Then it turns into (effectively) a phone book - and I don't
Noel, in all of this you're assuming that being remembered on an IETF
wiki should be an exclusive award.
On 10/22/12 13:14, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
From: Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu
If this memorial wiki page could be open to anyone who ever contributed
to any I* and
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 01:14:07PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
If this memorial wiki page could be open to anyone who ever contributed
to any I* and for whom there was at least one person who wanted to
contribute the information, then fine.
Then it turns into (effectively) a
A group of folks have had discussions over the years about finding ways to
encourage and support the participation of women in the IETF. For those who are
interested, this is a reminder that a mailing list exists for IETF women:
syst...@ietf.org. Sign-up is at
Not that I object to the creation of such a construct - far from it
..
So it's not a replacement for a Hall of Fame, which people might read,
or scan through, in its entirety.
From: Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu
you're assuming that being remembered on an IETF wiki
On 2012-10-22 19:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 18/10/2012 02:25, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
On 10/17/2012 7:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yeah. Turns out we (the Web standards community) haven't been doing
such a great job of making our specificatiosn match
On 10/22/2012 3:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
But I still feel a mild level of need for a IETF HoF to recognize, and keep
prominent (for new members) the memory of past IETFers whose contributions
are worthy of recognition, but who probably don't rise to the level needed
for more major honours
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:03:58PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
But I still feel a mild level of need for a IETF HoF to recognize, and keep
prominent (for new members) the memory of past IETFers whose contributions
are worthy of recognition, but who probably don't rise to the level needed
for
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps not
the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for each
person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Editorial process will provide some vetting on quality. Use
On 10/22/12 16:25, Steve Crocker allegedly wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps
not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for
each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Editorial
On 10/22/2012 03:52 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
If we want to keep this in the spirit of long-established (newspaper)
traditions rather than a web page, we could use the IETF Journal for
recording the passing of members of the community.
This sounds like the best suggestion to me so far
On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps
not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for
each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Editorial
On 22 October 2012 21:25, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps
not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for
each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
What you are insisting on defining as a URL is the input to the
process of making a hypertext reference (the arbitrary string typed into
a dialog or placed inside an href/src
On 2012-10-22 23:46, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
I couldn't agree more! We've been waiting for four years for the URI
working group to get their act together and fix the URL mess. Nothing
has happened. We lost patience and are now doing it ourselves. ...
On 23/10/2012, at 9:11 AM, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote:
It seems reasonable that someone should write rules for dealing with the
kinds of errors that are observed to occur in links as embedded in resource
representations AKA HTML pages. It also seems reasonable that WHATWG, who
Dick and Steve,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Dick Franks rwfra...@acm.org wrote:
On 22 October 2012 21:25, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is
perhaps not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a
On 23/10/2012, at 9:35 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Consensus isn't a value I hold highly, but review of Anne's work is
welcome.
If the IETF community didn't want Anne to do this work, then the IETF
community should have done it. Having not done it, having not even
understood
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The notion that curl, or an HTTP cache manager, or an XML namespace
processor, is going to be routing around errors, strikes me on the face
of it as being wrong. One of the main uses I put curl to is making sure
I have the
On 23/10/2012, at 10:25 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
What exactly do you suggest?
Doing the work but at the IETF? See my reply to James.
Don't much care about the venue, as long as there's *some* coordination /
communication.
Waiting for the IETF to do the work? We did, and
On 23/10/2012, at 10:40 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Don't much care about the venue, as long as there's *some* coordination
/ communication.
Everyone is welcome to participate in the WHATWG list.
As they are on the IETF list. The
One more data point... I work on Web software all the time and have for
many years; in recent years mostly at the REST (app-to-app HTTP
conversations) rather than browser-wrangling level. I’d have to say that
URI interoperability problems haven’t come near getting into the list of
top-20 pain
Hello,
I made this comment privately during the LC period. I don't mind
sharing it more widely:
My high-order take away is that it seems to me that this draft runs
counter to hierarchy-based solutions that can solve this problem just
fine without any additional RSVP modifications. I
Memorials are for the living. The dead typically have ceased to care.
I don't know what a simple listing will achieve. The war monuments that Ted
mention sort of educate the living by reminding them of the massive sacrifices
that wars cause. Just listing a bunch of names will not help all that
a friend suggested privately an article in the ietf journal when someone
has died. this seems a no-brainer. and it is archived.
i will not indulge in the swamp of attempting to codify who writes it
and how. if the ietf journal editor(s) can not be trusted, replace
them. sheesh!
randy
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
Yes.
Barry
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) Cut-off is today.
All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC 24:00 Monday, October
22.
All drafts can be uploaded using the ID submission tool located here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Address Resolution Problems in Large Data Center Networks'
(draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-04.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Address Resolution for Massive
numbers of hosts in the Data center Working Group.
The
The IESG has received a request from the Keying and Authentication for
Routing Protocols WG (karp) to consider the following document:
- 'Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP Issues According to KARP Design
Guide'
draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-05.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG
50 matches
Mail list logo
