The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure
> (X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:
> - 'X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status
>Protocol - OCSP'
>as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decis
To raise this discussion up a bit, I can think two other related reasons why
there may be less corporate diversity in the IETF.
The first is that it's possible to build applications and businesses that take
advantage of the Internet without having to come to the IETF to standardize
anything.
Joel,
the small shops you worked for were in the US, right?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern [j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: 23 March 2013 03:24
To: Mark Prior
Cc: John
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Martin Rex wrote:
> >
> > My impression of todays IESG role, in particular taking their
> > balloting rules and their actual balloting results into account,
> > is more of a "confirming body" of work that happened elsewhere
> > (primarily in the IETF, typically in IETF
I would have to disagree with:
On 3/22/2013 11:17 PM, Mark Prior wrote:
...
Hi John,
I think that any small shop (whatever that means) would be put off if
they sent someone to an IETF as it appears that it is dominated by the
big vendors pushing their own agendas. Given that impression I imagi
Melinda Shore wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
> > each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
> > appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not coming
> > out in this kind of thread.
Since I personally partici
On 21/03/13 1:33 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 23:36 +0100 Jari Arkko
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
sm
On 3/22/13 6:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
> each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
> appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not coming
> out in this kind of thread.
Well, maybe, but it seems to me that he's
On 03/23/2013 02:22 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Sorry, Martin, but you're not describing how the IETF actually
> works.
>
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not com
On 3/22/13 6:17 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Before allowing a new WG to start, ADs seem to make an assessment
> of whether there are sufficient volunteers of both kinds to do the
> work, whether there is sufficient expertise in the IETF to perform
> adequate review of the results and whether there is s
Melinda Shore wrote:
> Martin Rex wrote:
> >
> > As I understand and see it, the IESG is running IETF processes,
> > is mentoring IETF processes (towards WG Chairs, BOFs, individuals
> > with complaints/appeals), and is trying to keep an eye on the
> > overall architecture, and put togethe the pie
On 03/22/2013 03:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't think we're in disagreement. I think that more diversity in IETF
would help minimize the risk that some interests were shortchanged, but I
certainly agree that another factor is a lack of und
On 3/22/2013 4:43 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
Granted, it may be that the list of _qualified_ candidates is less
diverse than the set of all people who are willing to run. But, if so,
that isn't because there aren't companies who are willing/able to
On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> I don't think we're in disagreement. I think that more diversity in IETF
> would help minimize the risk that some interests were shortchanged, but I
> certainly agree that another factor is a lack of understanding of, and
> respect for, the e
On 03/22/2013 09:50 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 21, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
...
Another result is that the Internet architecture has gone to hell, and we're
now spending a huge amount of effort building kludges to fix the problems
associated with other kludges and the new k
Hi Russ,
At 08:43 22-03-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
RFC 2050 contains rules that are superseded by RIR policies.
That doesn't explain the label. :-)
This document replaces RFC 2050. Since the publication of RFC 2050,
the Internet Numbers Registry System has changed
significantly. This docume
On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:04 PM, SM wrote:
> 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 specifi
Elwyn:
> Two points:
>
>> 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 scope and out of scope of the document. Then
>> tra
On Mar 21, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> Another result is that the Internet architecture has gone to hell, and we're
> now spending a huge amount of effort building kludges to fix the problems
> associated with other kludges and the new kludges will almost certainly
> create
On Mar 22, 2013, at 5:47 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> But I suspect the idea that there are fewer companies when the word "startup"
> seems to automatically imply something Internet related is wrong. There's
> plenty of small companies, but engagement in the IETF is either irrelevant -
> beca
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
> Quite the contrary. I am interpreting a few of the 'diversity' posts as
> saying the IETF has fewer companies participating and much fewer smaller
> companies participating. And I am interpreting those posts as implying some
> nefarious plot on
21 matches
Mail list logo
