On 19/03/2013 12:59, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
I'd love to get out of this rat hole. Perhaps the signatories of the
open letter can restate the problem they see so it isn't made in terms of
race and gender.
The letter
On 03/19/2013 11:04 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Margret this is the IETF, it regularly sets aside law to create its own
lies about what it is and is not capable of in a legal context - but
that is all about to change I think...
Todd
On 19/03/2013 12:59, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Mar 12,
There's always some excuse as to why multi-homing is never done properly.
On 03/19/13 20:38, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote:
Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always
backwards.
It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.
On 19 Mar 2013 22:47, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote:
I can just see the list of MUST, SHOULD and MAY have attributes,
Tsk. RFC 2119 only applies to interoperability requirements, as you well
know.
So unless we're also swapping t-shirts...
I agree with Brian.
IETF has no king.
If the badge said that somebody is a chair, it may imply that there has a
king.
dot is better !
Jiankang Yao
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent:
On 20/03/2013 01:23, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
On 3/19/2013 8:01 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I think this means we should closely consider the goals of a mentoring
effort. Is it to help them navigate the IETF structure, personalities,
and immune system to get something done? Is it to help them
Hi Arturo,
Good points that you have made. However, I would like to just sharpen some
of the things. There are many governments that do not understand how the
Internet works. Well, there are a lot of people even in the IETF that
might not really know how Internet works, and even bigger number
Dear authors,
While reviewing draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol, Rahul got some
feedback that actually concerns draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech.
Can you please take this into account.
Regards, Benoit
Few comments.
1. Page 8:
1. The difference between Intermediate Selection
On 21 Feb 2013, at 02:46, Carlos M. martinez
carlosm3...@gmail.commailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ?
Use all evil bits for IP addresses and we'll soon have no need for IPv6.
Geoff Huston and I wrote a draft to use the evil bit to indicate the
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
Sex
Sexual orientation
The U.S. has a similar (although not identical) list, and it may
On 20/03/2013 10:53, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
Sex
Sexual orientation
The U.S. has a similar
Let's not play Internet lawyers about this. How Jari's design team
bring in real lawyers at the appropriate time?
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.orgwrote:
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
I'd love to get out of this rat hole. Perhaps the signatories of the
open letter can restate the problem they see so it isn't made in terms of
race and gender.
The letter specifically
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Riccardo Bernardini
framefri...@gmail.comwrote:
if I do not know the, say, sexual orientation of a candidate, I cannot
discriminate (even on a subconscious level) using that information.
Hi Riccardo,
I hope you are not suggesting candidates to remain in
Hello.
As far as I can tell, www.rfc-editor.org doesn't support TCP window
scaling. It also doesn't support ftp on its IPv6 address:
swmike@uplift:~$ telnet -4 www.rfc-editor.org 21
Trying 64.170.98.47...
Connected to rfc-editor.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 FTP Server Ready
quit
221
--On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 06:53 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
...
I am not suggesting that we start collecting or publishing
this information, just saying that it makes it hard to tell
whether our leadership is reasonably representative of the
community in some of
On Mar 20, 2013, at 3:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, I think an important part of that is ensuring that people
do *not* focus exclusively on a specific target, even if they are
busy people as Ben said.
Change the sense of ensuring to encouraging, and I
I would suggest John that the real diversity the IETF needs is
transparency in its process and a competent IPR rule set which meets the
same set of legal hurdles people do in the commercial world so to speak.
I would also suggest that the idea of splitting all of these
contractually binding
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.orgwrote:
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
IESG, with name/area: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/past-members.html
IAB, with name/affiliation: http://www.iab.org/about/history/
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jorge Contreras cntre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.orgwrote:
Hi
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Jorge Contreras cntre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org
wrote:
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and
I do not really think the legal angle is helpful in resolving this problem.
(Which country's laws do we need to comply with?) Let's treat these legal
ideas as considerations that we should be thinking about, not something
where we should be striving for strict compliance.
--Richard
On Wed,
Going a bit over-the-top: is there an interaction between sex and sexual
orientation? Can one count as the other?
On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Riccardo Bernardini framefri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org
wrote:
Hi Stewart,
On 20/03/2013 13:42, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 3:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, I think an important part of that is ensuring that people
do *not* focus exclusively on a specific target, even if they are
busy people as Ben said.
Change
On 3/19/2013 1:20 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Merely to offer an example notation:
Sean Turner mentioned that a year ago someone asked him how to become
a WG chair. Asking is the first step! He thinks that if people want to
actively participate, they need to volunteer to write drafts etc.
On 03/20/2013 08:13 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
The monetary and time resources necessary to fill an I* position adequately
appear quite significant to me, and I believe it would be hard to fill
them without strong support from an employer which covers the monetary
investment.
Agreed. But this is a
Dear Benoit,
Will do.
Kind regards,
Salvatore
Da: Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 20 marzo 2013 09:36
A: draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-t...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Rahul Patel; ip...@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [IPFIX] Last Call:
On 03/20/13 15:16, Jorge Contreras allegedly wrote:
I would strongly recommend that legal counsel be consulted before any
such list is produced or used by IETF/IESG/Nomcom.
Or don't generate it at all. Trying to have a complete list of human
attributes to diversify to looks like an engineer's
On 03/20/2013 07:16 AM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.org mailto:m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
Jorge - did I miss something here - isnt this your job? If not why are
you here?
Let me respond that further - I believe that there
On Wed, March 20, 2013 7:16 am, Jorge Contreras wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.orgwrote:
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
As I understand it, Jorge is highlighting that he is not an expert in
employment and Equal opportunity law. That is a specific expertise.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM, tsg tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 03/20/2013 07:16 AM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM,
On 3/20/2013 4:33 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Let's not play Internet lawyers about this. How Jari's design team
bring in real lawyers at the appropriate time?
Or not.
There's an important choice between focusing on the sufficiency of
representation from a defined set of population groups,
I don't think anyone is asking for strict compliance to a particular
country's laws, although, one could debate that since ISOC is the
mother organization for IETF that it might be reasonable to look at
the laws in the regions where ISOC is incorporated. My understanding,
however, is that since
Hi Dave,
On Wed, March 20, 2013 8:35 am, Dave Crocker wrote:
ps. A small point to watch for, if there is a focus on a defined list
of groups, is the difference between discriminating /against/, versus
ensuring representation /from/. Active prohibition vs. active
solicitation. The
I'm somewhat worried at the lurch this thread has taken into the land of
protected classes, legal advice, etc. I hope we do not go there.
Having said that ... since Eric asked ...
On 3/20/2013 9:57 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
Going a bit over-the-top: is there an interaction between sex and
On 03/20/2013 11:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Given that folks are still debating whether this years nominees
reflected a reasonable diversity (there were 9 women out of 37
nominees),
I actually don't think that the number of female nominees is
relevant.What is relevant is the number of
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Given that folks are still debating whether this years nominees
reflected a reasonable diversity (there were 9 women out of 37
nominees),
I actually don't think that
On 3/20/2013 11:21 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
So I guess I've formed the impression that merely being nominated for a
position doesn't really mean that a person is available.
[MB] You have to keep in mind in the past
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:01:01AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
On Wed, March 20, 2013 8:35 am, Dave Crocker wrote:
ps. A small point to watch for, if there is a focus on a defined list
of groups, is the difference between discriminating /against/, versus
ensuring representation /from/.
On 3/20/2013 10:01 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
In general, we want the best people in the job in question. What is best
depends on the position (chair, I*, etc.) but as a technical organization
that runs on documents, several things will bubble to the top:
- Technical clue in the matter at hand.
-
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:09:41AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/20/2013 10:01 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
In general, we want the best people in the job in question. What is best
depends on the position (chair, I*, etc.) but as a technical organization
that runs on documents, several things
On 03/20/2013 12:21 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Given that folks are still debating whether this years nominees
reflected a reasonable diversity (there were 9 women out of 37
On 3/20/2013 10:53 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:09:41AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Also note that your list is missing something that was raised
earlier in the thread, namely the difference between local
optimization versus 'global'. There are benefits in having a group
On Wed, March 20, 2013 10:01 am, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:01:01AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
On Wed, March 20, 2013 8:35 am, Dave Crocker wrote:
ps. A small point to watch for, if there is a focus on a defined list
of groups, is the difference between discriminating
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some suggestions
for how this is to be accomplished. Maybe request that future RFCs related
to these technical and operational considerations include an applicability
On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:22, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get
an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting.
I want my badge on a
Part of what I meant when I signed the diversity letter was to state a belief
that within a pool of qualified candidates, I believe diversity is
important enough that it is valuable to select for diversity even if
this does not maximize the skills that you enumerated (tech skill, admin
skill,
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the IETF a result
of market forces, like consolidation and bankruptcy, as opposed to nefarious
forces, like a company hiring all of the I* leadership? We have mechanisms to
deal with the latter, but there is not much we can do about
On 03/20/2013 12:18 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the IETF a result
of market forces, like consolidation and bankruptcy, as opposed to nefarious
forces, like a company hiring all of the I* leadership? We have mechanisms to
deal with the
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:01:41PM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
For candidates wherein the above things are roughly equal - or have
exceeded
the requirements - diversity is a possible tie-breaker. If the intent is
to
emphasize diversity (for some metric) over one of the core skills, that's
Hi, Russ.
Two points:
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 22:30 -0500, David Farmer wrote:
snip
Rereading things again, I have another suggestion;
4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the
Introduction. The Intro starts out talking about the document, its
goals, and what is in
I interpret it as anybody.
ISPs, cctlds, governments, gtlds, IETF, RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, you, me.
/as
On 3/20/13 4:43 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
Over the years, the Internet Numbers Registry System has developed
On 3/20/13 12:17 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/20/13 15:16, Jorge Contreras allegedly wrote:
I would strongly recommend that legal counsel be consulted before any
such list is produced or used by IETF/IESG/Nomcom.
Or don't generate it at all. Trying to have a complete list of human
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:13:01PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Part of what I meant when I signed the diversity letter was to state a belief
that within a pool of qualified candidates, I believe diversity is
important enough that it is valuable to select for diversity even if
this does not
On 3/20/13 14:04 , John Curran wrote:
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some suggestions for
how this is to be accomplished. Maybe request that future RFCs related to
these technical and operational
Next time you see Monique, please thank her for he service the the Internet
community.
From: IAB Chair [iab-ch...@iab.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:04 PM
To: Monique Morrow
Subject: Thank you for your service as NGN liaison manager
Dear Monique,
Whops, that escaped. Sorry.
Lets start over.
On 3/20/13 15:51 , David Farmer wrote:
On 3/20/13 14:04 , John Curran wrote:
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some
suggestions for how this is to be
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:18:24PM -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the IETF a
result of market forces, like consolidation and bankruptcy, as opposed to
nefarious forces, like a company hiring all of the I* leadership? We have
mechanisms to
At 12:43 20-03-2013, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This contains some woolly hand-waving weasel words at the end:
I looked up the meaning of weasel words and found the following:
words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific
and meaningful has been said, when in fact
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and the development
of the IETF to focus on more particular core aspects of the Internet (like
routing) as opposed to what the small shops might work on.
But I think we are missing a bit of the point in this discussion. I do not feel
On Mar 20, 2013, at 3:25 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
xxx is obligated to ... wasn't intended as a suggestions for text, but like
I paraphrased the text from the draft above, and I intended it to paraphrase
the the text that needs to be added. The text above quoted from the draft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/20/13 2:37 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:18:24PM -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the
IETF a result of market forces, like consolidation and
bankruptcy, as opposed to
Jari Arkko wrote:
But I think we are missing a bit of the point in this discussion.
I do not feel that we need to prove we are somehow no worse than
industry average. The point is that *if* we had more diversity along
many of the discussed lines, we'd be far better off. For instance,
having
On 3/20/13 3:20 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
While I agree that it helps avoiding a few big vendors bias.
is this really a significant problem _today_, adversely affecting a
non-marginal amount of the current IETF output, and in a fashion where
simply more diversity in the I* leadership would bring a
On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I might as well comment quickly about draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft
is a good effort but it might need more work in my humble opinion.
The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
The RFC is not
Melinda Shore wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
While I agree that it helps avoiding a few big vendors bias.
is this really a significant problem _today_, adversely affecting a
non-marginal amount of the current IETF output, and in a fashion where
simply more diversity in the I* leadership would
On 3/20/13 4:51 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I'm having difficulties to follow (but I'm also new to diversity discussions).
It is my understanding that work in the IETF is done by individual
participants within Working Groups or as individuals. Review seems to
happen within WGs, and the review
Alissa,
It was suggested that we remove the word implicit. I'm OK with removing
it. If we did that, would you want to add this new sentence or a modified
version of it?
Paul
-Original Message-
From: apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-
boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
An ad-hominem argument, Melinda?
really?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
[melinda.sh...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 March 2013 01:01
To: m...@sap.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Hannes,
I was hoping that some of the remarks that I provided last year (e.g.,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08965.html) would
help to clarify the content of the document. That didn't quite happen...
Yeah, I wasn't copied.
In earlier versions of the document I had
Hi John,
This is an individual comment.
At 16:38 20-03-2013, John Curran wrote:
The RFC is not intended to establish anything new, only to recognize
the existing agreements and practices of the IETF in this area.
Ok. I'll defer to the learned individuals of the IETF in respect to
the
--On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 23:36 +0100 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I think it is mostly market forces and historical reasons, and
the development of the IETF to focus on more particular core
aspects of the Internet (like routing) as opposed to what the
small shops might work
On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:45 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Ok. I'll defer to the learned individuals of the IETF in respect
to the intended status. It is my understanding that the document
also aims to replace BCP 12.
Excellent question; it's my belief that obsoleting RFC2050 would
do that,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:59:34PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:13:01PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Part of what I meant when I signed the diversity letter was to state a
belief
that within a pool of qualified candidates, I believe diversity is
important enough
On 3/20/2013 3:18 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in
the IETF a result of market forces, like consolidation and
bankruptcy, as opposed to nefarious forces, like a company
hiring all of the I* leadership? We have mechanisms to deal
with the
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Signaling Cryptographic Algorithm Understanding in DNSSEC'
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-09.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: a...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/maillist.html
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
Purpose: This list is for discussing requirements, recommendations, algorithms,
Next time you see Monique, please thank her for he service the the Internet
community.
From: IAB Chair [iab-ch...@iab.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:04 PM
To: Monique Morrow
Subject: Thank you for your service as NGN liaison manager
Dear Monique,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6880
Title: An Information Model for Kerberos
Version 5
Author: L. Johansson
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6884
Title: RTP Payload Format for the Enhanced
Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)
Author: Z. Fang
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6893
Title: A Uniform Resource Name (URN)
Namespace for the Open IPTV Forum (OIPF)
Author: P. Higgs, P. Szucs
Status: Informational
Stream:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6903
Title: Additional Link Relation Types
Author: J. Snell
Status: Informational
Stream: Independent
Date: March 2013
Mailbox:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6906
Title: The 'profile' Link Relation Type
Author: E. Wilde
Status: Informational
Stream: Independent
Date: March 2013
Mailbox:
84 matches
Mail list logo
