On 11/16/2012 12:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done.
I wonder how you measure/count
I want to thank everyone who has provided feedback on this draft. Given
the issues raised, I am sending the draft back to the LISP WG for
additional work. I encourage folks interested in this draft to
participate on the LISP mailing list.
Regards,
Brian
On 11/13/12 9:45 AM, The IESG wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Benson Schliesser wrote:
I expect to be flamed for suggesting it, but why not use the Shared Address
Space for this purpose?
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598)
You can't, if carriers are assigning you that IP range. You'd still get
a conflict if you use it for your own
I wonder how you measure/count IETF participants...
Do you measure participants based on subscriptions to IETF
mailing-lists? -- If so, how do you assign a location to the plenty of
gTLD addresses? (including those at gmail.com)
I'm guessing based on the mail I see on the lists I'm on and the
Responses to a couple of points that people have made:
From: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I
was used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were
where things really happened and that e-mail filled in the gaps
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says
This is all true.
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would
On 11/27/12 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
and I think that the IETF web site has it about
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
- Original Message -
From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org
To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:00 PM
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com
wrote:
That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate
review, and it seems to me to be appropriate to request volunteers
from wg participants to review documents before moving them along.
Melinda
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:33:29PM +, t.p. wrote:
Chair, that unless and until people speak up on the list, eg during Last
Call, then the I-D in question is going nowhere - which I find healthy.
I strongly agree with this.
If people continue not to speak up, well then perhaps it is time
On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
and I think
+1
--dmm
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote:
On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com
wrote:
That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face
Hi Barry,
At 10:00 27-11-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the
document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad
consensus of the working group.
:-)
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face
+1
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
the mailing lists, and not in
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents
have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into
the document history for... to find that there's basically no history.
We see a string of versions posted,
I generally agree with Joe. There should be discussion but the
distribution of that discussion between meeting and mailing list is
not significant; however, there must be sufficient opportunity for
objection or additional comments on the mailing list and, in the case
of discussion at a meeting,
The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads
WG (payload) to consider the following document:
- 'RTP payload format for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband
Codec (EVRC-NW)'
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (dccp) working group in the
Transport Area has concluded after having completed all of its chartered
work. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling.
The DCCP mailing list (d...@ietf.org) will remain open in order to
enable
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: yaco-nomcom-t...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yaco-nomcom-tool/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yaco-nomcom-tool
Purpose: Discussion of the Yaco / Nomcom Project
For additional
24 matches
Mail list logo
