Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant > in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some "more" > technical standards where developed in IETF, and moved forward along > standards

Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid > carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think > another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in > which technical considerations imply real constraint

RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

hi Ben. thanks for your review. comments/replies inline. > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:07 PM > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >

Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

--On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:46 -0400 John Curran wrote: >... >> Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption >> that anything that reasonably looks like "technical stuff" >> belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just >> make having the right conversations even

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

It seems to me that you have missed the fact that the IETF is a volunteer organization. The vast majority of us appreciate that Thomas creates this summary. If you feel different information would be useful, then create your own report and share the results, to at least to see if your version is d

Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

On 6/21/13 10:46 , John Curran wrote: I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process of consensus development and approval. I believe that prot

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

These are valid points. For a long time, I used a public forum support reporter for our support process which categorized daily and hourly messaging patterns, hottest threads and topics and reply efficiency concepts. Basically to see how many messages were replied to in general and how many wer

Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:43 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > ... > The point, Warren (and others) is that all of these are "ICANN > doing technical stuff" and even "technical standards" in a broad > sense of that term. Some of it is stuff that the IETF really > should not want to do (I'm tempted to say

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Hi Stewart, I don't have any problem with the report/reminder only that it has missing important information. The subjects of discussions are not counted, so I counted them. Also the report does not distinguish between general-posting and replying to IETF LCs. AB On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

+1 (and that will be my only posting on this subject, I suggest that if you don't get Stewart's drift you stop sending mails to the list until you do) /Loa On 2013-06-21 15:00, Stewart Bryant wrote: AB Thomas started posting these weekly reports many years ago as a service to the community to

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

AB Thomas started posting these weekly reports many years ago as a service to the community to remind us all that posting to ietf@ietf.org contributes to the information and work overload of the IETF community as a whole. The numbers are a reminder to think carefully about what you send to the

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

* For Week 25 in 2013 About 17 subjects discussed, about 6 IETF LCs, about 3 Gen-Art Review. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > Messages | Bytes | Who > +--++--+ > 1.83% | 3 | 2.01% | 25980 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com > 3

Re: Policy makers

On 6/21/13 2:38 AM, SM wrote: > At 11:00 20-06-2013, The IAOC wrote: >> series of events and programs in South America. This would include: >> >> - Increasing the IETF Fellows and policy makers from the region > > I don't see any policy makers reviewing Internet-Drafts. I don't see > any policy