On 4/10/13 7:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once
blacklisted them and caused them some inconvenience, therefore all
DNSBLs suck forever. I could say similar things about buggy PC
implementations of TCP/IP, but I think a few things
Dear Peter,
The new version is now available online. A diff is available here:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-08.
Thank you again for the review.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Peter Yee [mailto:pe...@akayla.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 10 avril
All
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
questions to the registration process, for example, gender. Of course,
they
Somebody point me to see that the date of the post in circleid is April
1st ...
:)
-as
On 4/11/13 11:17 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
On 4/10/13 7:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once
blacklisted them and caused them some
And please direct your comments to i...@ietf.org
Thanks
Ray
On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are
I see no harm in including these type of question as optional.
Personally I do not care if it were mandatory but I think that the most
sensible thing to do is to add it as optional.
It would be also good to see the complete set of questions.
So, I support.
Regards,
as
On 4/11/2013 8:11 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
questions to the registration process, for example, gender.
...
The IAOC would like to hear from the community on this proposal.
The world has quite a bit of experience with such survey
Given how in my understanding, a key concern is really a perceived or real
diversity bias in IETF leadership, if you do add questions about diversity,
please also add
the following questions. In fact, i think it would help the nomcom process to
ask
these questions whether or not you also ask
Hi Ray,
As you may know, the form of the question asked in any survey can have
a major impact on both how it is answered and the rates at which it is
answered. If you are considering adding a question on gender, may I
suggest you look at:
On 4/11/2013 8:00 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
The first three question could allow based on self assessment to evaluate
whether
IETF leadership is biased based on diversity stats or not.
There are actually several questions in there. It
would be interesting to know how the pool of people
On 4/11/13 1:00 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
if you do add questions about diversity, please also add
the following questions.
Please no.
This is about the registration form, not a survey.
.as
When adding diversity questions to the registration form, i think there should
be a very crisp description, whom exactly this information is made available to,
and how it is meant to be used.
If the total stats for example are simply made available publically and there
are not also other stats
questions must be optional to answer too.
Tom
On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
When adding diversity questions to the registration form, i think there should
be a very crisp description, whom exactly this information is made available
to,
and how it
Yes, but then you would end up with a large registration form that
people may decide not to complete at all.
.as
On 4/11/13 1:58 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
questions must be optional to answer too.
Tom
On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:58:07PM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
questions must be optional to answer too.
Definitely.
Tom
On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
When adding diversity questions to the registration form, i think there
should
be a
Hi, all,
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review,
I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its
documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):
The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
it
That's the tail wagging the dog.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:19:55PM -0300, Arturo Servin wrote:
Yes, but then you would end up with a large registration form that
people may decide not to complete at all.
.as
On 4/11/13 1:58 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
questions must be
I don't have the same overall feeling that its less reliable.
I believe it is 100% reliable when it comes to the good
communications, the serious stuff, the work, business communications.
Those get through and more importantly, above all, when there is a
problem, good people complain, any
The IAB has been deliberating the selection of the liaison from the IETF
community to ICANN Board over the past several weeks. The IAB was very pleased
to have a strong set of candidates. We very much appreciate the willingness of
so many talented people to serve the community in this
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, I've
noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its documented
and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):
The IESG shall determine
Hi Ray,
At 08:11 11-04-2013, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
questions to the registration
On Apr 11, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
All
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
On 4/11/2013 3:09 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Dave Crocker suggested getting an expert. I don't think that would help. Such
an expert would tell you that the questions you can ask depends on the group
you are asking. Questions that would be acceptable in one country, would be
inappropriate in
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female.
0.1% of IAB members are female
0 % of IESG members are female.
Based on the above measurements the IAOC is more diverse. The IAOC already
collects gender-related information. The
At 11:11 AM 4/11/2013, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
questions to the registration
--On Thursday, April 11, 2013 20:09 + Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Ray Pelletier
rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
All
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we
would like to attempt to measure diversity while working on
+1 to Joe's comment.
Example: the existence of the extensibility bit in multipath tcp, which i
understand came out of a review by the iesg member responsible for security.
In that context, that would be outside the scope of any security review, and
the comments weren't raised in a personal
Hi, SM,
This may be a misprint ...
On 4/11/2013 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female.
0.1% of IAB members are female
0 % of IESG members are female.
Based on the above measurements the IAOC is
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.orgwrote:
Hi, SM,
This may be a misprint ...
On 4/11/2013 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female.
0.1% of IAB members are
On Apr 11, 2013, at 4:50 PM, David Meyer
d...@1-4-5.netmailto:d...@1-4-5.net wrote:
Agreed, however, it would seem to me that at least one question that one might
as is whether these percentages are representative of the IETF population at
large.
A rough eyeball check at the plenary in Orlando
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 4:50 PM, David Meyer d...@1-4-5.net wrote:
Agreed, however, it would seem to me that at least one question that one
might as is whether these percentages are representative of the IETF
population at
On Apr 11, 2013, at 5:10 PM, David Meyer d...@1-4-5.net
Yes, but that is a different question. --dmm
IOW, you are suggesting that the percentages among non-attending participants
may be substantially different than the percentages among attending
participants? That's a point worth
Hi Ian,
Examples are useful because they give the IESG something to chew on. If you
don't call us when we do bad stuff we might never know.
Examples can be dangerous because we can rat-hole into the specific rather than
the general, but i would like to use your example as data point to get some
Suggesting that simply diversity stats across all IETF participants can help
to deduce anything about leadership diversity bias is ignoring qualification
and availability of candidates. Thats why i proposed the questions i would like
to see
in a questionaire.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 09:14:59PM
l.w...@surrey.ac.uk l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
+1 to Joe's comment.
Example: the existence of the extensibility bit in multipath tcp,
which i understand came out of a review by the iesg member responsible
for security.
I assume you're talking RFC 6824. I recommend reading the Narrative
On 4/11/2013 1:26 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I think this is a pretty underspecified proposal.
In general, you use a survey to answer specific questions that have come up
during postulate creation.
...
I'd like a more fully specified proposal before saying yea or nay.
+10
Those are some
And that should, of course, have read Hi Lloyd
Sorry about that, Lloyd.
The rest of the message still stands.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
Farrel
Sent: 11 April 2013 22:18
To: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
Cc:
On 4/11/2013 11:55 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, I've
noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its documented and
original intent (BCP 9,
SM == SM s...@resistor.net writes:
SM 12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female.
SM 0.1% of IAB members are female
SM 0 % of IESG members are female.
SM Based on the above measurements the IAOC is more diverse. The
SM IAOC already
Stats without standard deviations are
In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that they
have not done their jobs unless they have raised a discuss. The one that took
the cake for me personally was a discuss raised by a particular AD (who shall
remain nameless) that in essence wondered what he should
On 4/11/2013 1:38 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Suggesting that simply diversity stats across all IETF participants can help
to deduce anything about leadership diversity bias is ignoring qualification
and availability of candidates. Thats why i proposed the questions i would
like to see
in a
On 4/12/13 1:31 AM, Henry B. Hotz h...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
What I would find helpful, and what I think some people really would
like, is for OCSP to be able to provide white-list information in
addition to the previous black-list information. When I read through
2560bis, I could not tell if
Total of 173 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 12 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.20% |9 | 4.70% |62873 | ted.le...@nominum.com
4.05% |7 | 3.16% |42214 |
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
questions to the registration process, for example, gender. Of course,
they need
The IAB has been deliberating the selection of the liaison from the IETF
community to ICANN Board over the past several weeks. The IAB was very pleased
to have a strong set of candidates. We very much appreciate the willingness of
so many talented people to serve the community in this
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6917
Title: Media Resource Brokering
Author: C. Boulton, L. Miniero,
G. Munson
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date:
46 matches
Mail list logo
