On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I don't understand why this issue is coming up.
Maybe you don't know, IETF 84 falls in the month of Ramadan for
Muslims and nobody asked to change it?
Two comments, a question, and a suggestion.
One, the muslims in the crowd had the
On Jul 20, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
As for the Ramadan issue: we've had IETF meetings during Jewish holidays a
few times, and folks dealt with it as best they can. If there are some
accommodations that can be made at any IETF meeting for different holidays of
major religions,
On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
So Americas was actually North America.
Well, it went the possibility to have one in central or south america,
what at shame. At least until IETF 98 in March 2017 no IETF down the south of
Rio Grande.
May I ask the
On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
o Co-location with RIPE appeared useful. I agree with you Joel that
tighter packing would have made a difference. I met some people who
noted they will not attend, but probably would have attended if it
was during the week. Co-locating
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism
doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an opinion
about Marshall's character.
Ditto, and Ditto.
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems
like a good direction.
One suggestion: it would be good for the reference to BCP 79 be accompanied, at
least in the web page in question, with a link to the BCP
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt). I could imagine
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and
seems like a good direction.
Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like a good direction.
Not being a lawyer, I
On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a
disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder
for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around
material
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote:
According to some RFC:
All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
a session starts.
If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions
On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
Was D.1 to ease wire tapping? By example, I, as a mail server operator
who is not a telecom, am not required by my country's laws to provide an
instrumentation whereby authorized investigators can obtain a list of a
user's
Speaking for myself, I would say that an internet draft is relevant to work in
a working group if and only if it is covered by the charter of the working
group. Anyone can claim anything to dodge the requirement that they ask
relevant groups to review it. That doesn't make the claim true.
In
On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:55 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to
Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that
trying to make specific rules about this will result in an
extended rat hole tour that ends up with
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
tools to collaborate.
Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF
or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using collaboration tools owned by
the entities you listed, or similar
On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:41 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
First, no objection and silence by IESG members are roughly
equivalent, but approval of a document with complete community
silence (either outside the relevant WG or on an individual
submission) makes some ADs nervous (and,
From my perspective, an important technical challenge in coming years might be
a variation on delay-tolerant networking. We have done a fair bit of work in
this area, for some definition of we - SOAP, Saratoga, and the NASA/JPL
DTNrg work. As Dave Crocker likes to point out, we actually have a
On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:35 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
If the IETF has become very international it would be apparent from the
mailing list archives. A quick look would show that there weren't any
messages from people from China or Japan [1].
I'd suggest you redo your analysis. It
On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote:
I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important.
There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within
our existing BCPs, to address this
On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote:
I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important.
There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within
our existing BCPs, to address this
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote:
On 03/14/13 08:23, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
One question I have is whether there isn't a list for newcomers to ask
questions that some of us can be on to help them before they get to
the meeting?
like
Yes, like
One
On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Dave, all,
We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or
understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from
reaching a common understanding of the situation now that
On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have
working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are
invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can strategically invite a few
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 Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a
On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think
it's mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they
notice that looks
On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
- There should be long-term commitment to maintain the data. I think we
simply don't have such processes in place, and personally I don't want to
even try to deal with this problem. I suspect that we'd have to
I your blog, you wrote:
Having been involved in the process for many years, often the bigger changes
at this stage relate to cross-area issues, or the fact that the careful
reviews from the IETF last call, directorates, and 15 ADs often represents a
significant increase in the number of
On May 2, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
wrote:
When asked if more could be done, (without any specific proposal
for what to do) the response was that increasing the workload
would maybe lead to a significant drop in that 80% figure since
secdir folks are also
On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
participants and she may dominate the WG consensus.
There may be
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how
On May 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am not expecting to agree with me as I do not agree that we only contribute
to standards development.
I agree with the substance of Donald's comment. Let me talk for a moment about
Adelaide.
In March 2000, the
On May 23, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote:
On 24/05/2013, at 9:06 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
I took the perspective that on our 40th meeting, we could have 1/40 in a
place that we had a few faithful participants that was well out of the way
On May 23, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper,
etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that have
been participating
On May 31, 2013, at 7:03 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
because more time in the air means more time without interruption where
drafts can be read before the meeting.
Heavens no. All meetings should be in Santa
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Yi DING yd...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
Well, if the dominant ones later being replaced by other groups, do we need
to revamp again? What will be the end?
I'm told that white babies are now a minority of the population in the US.
On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:26 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 08:02 20-06-2013, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Keep in mind that you're talking to an organisation that believes that
Vancouver qualifies as Asia.
That should be added to the Tao. :-)
At 08:24 20-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se 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
Congratulations, gentlemen.
On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:35 PM, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote:
Nevil Brownlee,
Tony Hansen,
Joe Hildebrandt,
Bob Hinden,
Alexey Melnikov,
Bernard Aboba (an IAB member), and
Joel Halpern (an IAB member).
On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:56 PM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com
wrote:
I am not sure whether hums are for a starting point or not. It can be argued
in different ways, for example, see Section 4. Humming helps to get a sense
of the room without people making a decision under duress.
On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a lot of work on consensus over the years and I think
this is fundamentally correct, although I'd amend the last sentence
to something along the lines of While we may not all agree, those
who disagree can live
http://windowsitpro.com/identity-management/richard-clarke-rsa-conference-10-observations-us-intelligence-gathering
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:55 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
The end user will usually be at the losing end of the bargain in
a tussle between the end user and government when Internet traffic
wiretapping is a matter of national security.
That depends on context. In a technology
On May 20, 2014, at 11:27 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@huitema.net wrote:
I am currently taking a look at RFC 2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol. The
design of RTSP/1.0 is pretty close to that of HTTP/1.0, with very similar
security and privacy considerations, but RTSP did not evolve as
43 matches
Mail list logo
