Not to pick on Jon specifically, but how is this common IETF
attitude consistent with the IETF's stated commitment to
open process?
At 06:52 AM 3/23/01 , Jon Crowcroft wrote:
also,the wireless access fro mthe pub was inspired! we got really
serious bar bof work done without tourists
Sorry that I wasn't more specific. I wasn't objecting to
the idea of work being done in a bar...
I think that we need to be careful about the assumption
that everyone we haven't seen before, or that doesn't
speak at a meeting, is a "tourist". If we want to have
an open organization, we
There will be a BOF on the subject of XML network configuration held
at IETF54 in Yokohama. A more detailed description is attached below.
Margaret
XML Configuration BOF [xmlconf]
===
Chair: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description
Hi All,
A mailing list has been set-up to discuss topics related to the XML
Configuration BOF that will be held in Yokohama. Please subscribe
to this list if you are interested.
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive URL: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/
To subscribe, send mail to
Hi All,
We have a proposal available for a new configuration protocol
that may be of interest to folks on these lists. The proposal
has been published an an I-D, and can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-enns-xmlconf-spec-00.txt
We believe that this proposal addresses
Thanks to Jim Galvin:
ftp://ftp.tislabs.com/pub/lists/poised
I can't access this URL (apparent permissions problem),
do others experience the same problem?
Margaret
Some comments on the process...
I have specific comments on the document, but I will send them
separately.
At 04:10 PM 3/7/2003 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
in December, I published an internet-draft called
draft-iesg-charter-00.txt, containing a proposed text for an IESG charter.
A
What about South America and India. I've heard that both are
substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for
vacation accomodations. Does the same hold for convention costs?
Margaret
At 11:57 AM 3/16/2003 +0100, Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\) wrote:
Brussels is the less expensive major
Hi Harald,
At 09:10 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, you wrote:
On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF
financials.
I have a few questions and comments on this presentation.
Do we have a real budget for 2003? Or are the numbers for
2003 based on the projection information (from
At 03:49 PM 3/27/2003 -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
No active IPv6 WG participant (whether or not he attends IETF
meetings) could credibly claim that he was unaware that this
discussion was taking place,
The discussion has been about potential usage limitation, or BCP's
,
and each of the four options had some support in that WG meeting.
And in Atlanta we all agreed to take elimination off the list, and it
has not been discussed since. The agenda for SF was:
Site-Local Addressing
Impact of site-local addressing -- Margaret Wasserman (20 min)
http://www.ietf.org
Hi John,
But suppose we really do have enough address space (independent of routing
issues). In that context, is site local just a shortcut to avoid dealing
with a more general problem? Should we have a address allocation policy
that updates the policies of the 70s but ignores the
Which actually poses an interesting question: when should an application
just give up? IMHO, there is only one clear-cut case, i.e. when the
application actually contacted the peer and obtained an explicit
statement that the planned exchange should not take place -- the
equivalent of a 4XX or
Hi Tony,
At 11:51 AM 3/31/2003 -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Of course, in the case of site-local addresses, you don't
know for sure that you reached the _correct_ peer, unless you
know for sure that the node you want to reach is in your
site.
Since the address block
included editor training, programs to help non-North Americans
become acclimated to the IETF, and mentoring programs for new
attendees.
The second half of the meeting focused on how to organize and
manage our internal educational efforts moving forward.
Margaret Wasserman presented a proposal
Hi Fred,
So in the general case I don't see a problem with deprecating
things under the right circumstances, but I do have a problem with
removing them outright. Deprecation doesn't prevent people from using
them, but outright removal can be dangerous. And in this case, the
assertion
Hi Scott,
Speaking only for myself, I would like to address a couple of the
points that you have made.
It is my opinion that there is a difference between a working group
deciding to adopt a technology and a working group deciding
to delete a technology from an existing IETF
The second is the side point I raised with Margaret: in the
general case of things in specifications, removing something
from a specification does not mean that someone can still use
it. Deprecation protects such a usage, but removal does not.
Scott's posting made a distinction between
Hi Scott,
But, for what it's worth, I do not think that there was sufficient
discussion of the option of deprecating SL addresses before
the consensus check was made. So, in a way, I think the consensus
was wrongly reached, even if I agree that consensus was reached.
If the San Francisco
Hi Scott,
Similarly for almost all of the rest. What's the point? Are you
reiterating the problem-statement work? They're doing all right,
although perhaps you could help push the work to completion. It would
be much more useful for you to reaffirm the fundamental
principles that are
Hi Bill,
Are these RSVP meetings ?
Can I forward this to my WG mailing list and suggest participation to
people that are interested ??? (ie. How big is the room you are
reserving ?)
No RSVPs are required.
All of the rooms will hold 100 or more people. Given previous
attendance at
Excuse me, but could you please constrain this
conversation to fewer than 9 (nine!) e-mail lists?
The BOF description lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
discussion list, but this discussion is being
cc:ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd suggest that you
move this discussion to whichever of those lists
is
In fact, if you go back to the archives of the 1992
discussions, it was perceived then that the previous
structure did not scale. For example, the IAB was in
charge of reviewing every RFC before it could be
published, and as the number of WG increased that
became a bottleneck. A lot of
I'm not sure when we started doing it, but we've been doing
a security tutorial on Sunday afternoon for a good number of IETFs..
Just to make sure of maximum access to machines on the temporary
ops.ietf.org network;) Make sure to use telnet and pop3 so cleartext
passwords are passed
editor, and includes advice on
producing a high-quality IETF specification.
1300-1500 Intro WG Chairs Training -- Location?? (Margaret Wasserman)
Introductory training for new or aspiring WG
chairs. Covers the role and responsibilities of
a WG chair
and a technical Security Tutorial.
All of these sessions are open to any IETF participant. So, if you
will be in San Diego on Sunday afternoon, I hope you will attend!
Thanks,
Margaret
---
Sunday, August 1, 2004
===
1300-1400 Newcomer's Training -- Grande Ballroom A (Margaret Wasserman
Hi All,
Like most people who have been involved in these discussions over the
past couple of years, I have my own personal views on the core
problems facing the IETF's administrative support functions and what
we should do to resolve them.
As we have worked through these issues, it has become
Hi Graham,
I'd like to make a couple of comments on your post -- not to argue
with you (because I think we are in basic agreement), but just to
clarify my earlier comments.
At 12:31 PM +0100 9/6/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. However, Margaret has written about problems with existing
Hi Harald,
At 9:32 AM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
These BCPs are the IETF's expectations on IETF behaviour. They
cannot constrain the behaviour of ISOC, unless ISOC makes an explict
commitment by Board resolution to do so, as it has done for its
roles in the standards process,
I believe that the difference between what Avri is discussing and
what is discussed in Carl's draft is that Avri is talking about
incorporating the IETF (the standards function), either as part of
ISOC or as an independent entity, not just the administrative support
function. Carl's draft
Putting an MoU-like agreement on the table could shift the center
of gravity of the responsibility for the future of the administrative
activity further from the centre of the ISOC organization. The
further out it gets, the less sense it makes to undertake
(anything like) the other mechanisms in
Hi Pete,
At 6:17 PM -0400 9/8/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
To date, there has been no proposal, in Carl's document or
otherwise as far as I know, for *the IETF* to incorporate as a
separate entity. There have been proposals to incorporate a body to
deal with IETF administrative functions (like
Hi Scott,
At 5:06 PM -0400 9/11/04, scott bradner wrote:
imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo path)
and try to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for
what Carl called the clerk function and maybe some other functions
(imo it would be better to outsorce the
Hi Harald,
As you say below, clarity is good. So, before I respond to this
post, I would like to better understand what you are asking...
RFC 3716 includes the following section:
4.3. Who Can Decide
The AdvComm believes that the IETF leadership, acting with the advice
and consent of the
In my previous response, I think I missed one important implied
questions in your message:
3 - The community has accepted the problem description and
principles laid out in RFC 3716.
I'll interpret this statement as a question:
As a member of the community, do I personally agree with the
Hi Harald,
At 12:04 PM +0200 9/21/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
I share Brian's belief that Scenario C is more complex. The document
for Scenario C currently focuses on the mechanics
Hi Bert,
Both you and Ted have posted preferences for Scenario C that, to me,
seem to say We will eventually have to go to Scenario C, anyway, so
we should undertake that effort today rather than leaving it for
later. This might be a compelling argument if it were clear to me
that we will
Hi Tony,
Great feedback. Thanks! A few comments in-line:
At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case
Hi Joel,
At 10:35 AM -0400 9/23/04, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Two minor comments:
1) The references to the IASF bank account should probably be
relaxed to IASF fund accounts or IASF accounts. As written, it
presumes that there is exactly one bank account, and that separation
of funds is by bank
The open source community definitely wants to be able to guarantee to
its users the ability to take text or code from an IETF standard and
use that text or code in derivatives of that standard. Parts of the
open source community want to be able to claim that that standard is
the real unmodified
Hi Dave,
I appreciate your feedback on the AdminRest process and documents,
and I have no doubt that your comments are motivated by a desire to
help the IETF make the best decisions possible. I think that is true
of everyone involved in this process, even when we are strongly
disagreeming
What label would you use? And how does it describe something
different from contracting?
How about parent organization?
I prefer the term organizational home, because it doesn't raise the
issue of who conceived whom. But, close enough.
As far as the organizational chart goes, I'll take that
Hi Eric,
I am afraid that your choice below won't mesh very well with why
companies have software patents in the first place. Software patents
aren't free, and companies are fairly careful about maintaining their
value.
So, I am wondering if there is a middle ground here somewhere...
Let's
Not to pick on Eliot in particular... This message is really
addressed to everyone who has said I trust the leadership to decide:
At 2:30 PM +0200 9/28/04, Eliot Lear wrote:
Just to be clear, I trust the leadership to decide better than I
can. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a
Hi Patrice,
I noticed the Internet-Draft that you posted regarding IETF
Administrative Restructuring, and I have a few comments on it,
speaking as one interested member of the IETF community to another.
For those who have not seen Patrice's draft, it can be found at:
Hi Patrice,
At 11:07 AM -0400 10/20/04, Patrice Lyons wrote:
You mentioned the importance of keeping support services, such as management
of cash flow, separate from IETF technical efforts. I share this concern in
large part. However, I would draw a distinction between carrying out
routine
Hi Paul,
Ignoring the rest of your post and just picking up on this part:
3. with regard to process transparency, you have all had a chance to
read my thoughts about california's sunshine law which holds that:
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the
Hi Brian,
At 2:23 PM +0200 10/23/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This is, I believe, one reason why our process includes a recall procedure.
It's interesting that this has never been exercised, but I think its
existence already puts the IESG and IAB on notice. However, it's always
going to be a
Hi All,
Early feedback on the Scenario O-based BCP proposal indicates that
we missed the mark in a few of the edits we made to address feedback
from the community. So, we are posting a new version today
(draft-wasserman-iasa-bcp-01.txt) that contains the following changes:
- Adjusted the
At 9:36 AM -0600 10/25/04, Vernon Schryver wrote:
That misses what I tried to say as well as the objections that have
been raised. All of the various state sunshine laws have exceptions
for personnell, legal, and other matters that truly must be discussed
in private.
Right. The point of a
Hi All,
As usual, we will be offering a number of training sessions on Sunday
afternoon of the upcoming IETF meeting. These sessions are open to
all IETF attendees.
At IETF 61, we will be holding the following training sessions:
Sunday, November 7, 2004
=
1300-1400
Hi Patrice,
Just FYI --
The Internet Society currently holds a liability insurance policy
that covers the IETF Chair, IESG members, IAB members, NomCom
members, WG chairs (and maybe others that I am forgetting). This
insurance is intended to protect IETF leaders and decisions makers
from the
At 10:33 AM -0500 11/12/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think my conclusion is that the right place for determining the
role and responsibilities of the IAD needs to be done by the
transition team (Nov-Feb or thereabouts), and that the conclusions
are reconfirmed by the IAOC before they
At 10:01 PM +0100 11/12/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That might be logical, but as the IAOC will not exist for some time,
and we want to make rapid progress, I think the IAD job description
does need to be drafted soon. However, I think there is a good argument
for splitting it out from the BCP.
I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC Support.
The first paragraph of this section says:
Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified
in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the yearly amount (as agreed to in
approved budget) in equal portions.
Personally, I do not think that an IETF BCP is the correct place to
include a lot of specifics about how the accounting for the IASA
activity will be handled. I think that those details should be
worked out, and adjusted as needed, by the IAOC (in consultation with
ISOC, accountants and tax
Hi Ted,
At 2:45 PM -0800 11/18/04, Ted Hardie wrote:
That's something
that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after
all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting
fees or memberships. Expert review to make sure that we're saying what
we want
At 11:33 AM -0800 11/20/04, Carl Malamud wrote:
How about this instead:
Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
Trustees may be required for some contracts, in order to provide
a single point of focus in support of the IASA, primary responsibility
for the evaluation,
Hi All,
It will probably come as no surprise to many of you that I have spent
quite a bit of time over the last few years trying to understand why
people use NATs and how they could be replaced with more
architecturally harmonious mechanisms. I have been completely
convinced for several years
Hi Bert,
I agree with Scott and others that the principles you have outlined
below are not high-level enough to be basic principles. Basic
principles would, IMO, be things like:
1. Transparency: The IETF Community should be informed of how all
monies related to the IASA are collected and
all i'm asking for at the moment is that transparency be mentioned
whenever consensus is mentioned. what kind of transparency, or what
kind of consensus, we mean can be defined elsewhere. changing consent
to informed consent might also be a good idea but is inadequate alone --
we talk a lot
At 3:41 PM +0100 12/1/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, I've always assumed there will be an MOU between IETF and ISOC,
both to recognize the BCP when we have it, and to make explicit some
of these boundary conditions.
This is interesting, because I had not assumed that there would be a
separate
I agree. The redudancy should stay... It is just a single sentence,
and it could save us from later misunderstandings that would be
incredibly difficult to unravel.
I saw one message that asked whether the IAOC can remove/replace
their chair mid-year. Does that need to be clarified? What
Hi Brian,
At 10:38 AM +0100 12/3/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect
the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it
projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I
believe, be adequately handled by so-called
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald this works for me (my only problem is stylistic - it's
Harald somewhat long for a principle, so may fit better in the
Harald details sections, if a place can be found for it).
I like the spirit of this as well. I
I agree with what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure about this
wording:
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA
and the IETF the rights in data that is needed to satisfy the principle
of data access.
Maybe:
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all
At 10:20 AM +0100 12/8/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support
of the IETF.
There are already laws about designated/earmarked donations that make
this true.
I think that the point that Brian was trying to make is that the
meeting
Hi Brian,
At 2:26 PM +0100 12/8/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any
money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset.
How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think.
I don't think that there is
Hi All,
In reviewing the IASA BCP draft, I noticed that there are no specific
requirements regarding the level of transparency or openness expected
from the IAOC. IMO, we should be careful to start this activity with
a well-established understanding regarding the level of transparency
and
This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some
questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps.
This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF
should ask ISOC for its support, not presume it.
Margaret
To respond to my own questions (not al lo fmy answers are 'yes'):
Do we expect the IAOC to keep minutes of their meetings and post
them publicly (unless there is a specific reason not to post a
certain section)? Specific reasons might include: personnel issue
and/or sensitive
Most contract negotiations that I've been involved in have not
involved the exchange of snail mail or faxes until after the terms
are complete and the signatures are being exchanged.
Margaret
At 12:21 PM -0500 12/8/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
Actually, I think that the IAOC should post all
Hi Scott,
At 12:36 PM -0500 12/8/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
Actually, I think that the IAOC should post all correspondence
1/ I took all correspondence to mean all correspondence
But, when I said all correspondence, I didn't mean _all_
correspondence... :-)
Okay, so this obviously needs to be
The full SOW for 2004 is on the ISOC web site, at
www.isoc.org/standards/rfceditor/sow.shtml. A less detailed form is on
the RFC Editor web site, at www.rfc-editor.org/DOCUMENTS/purpose.html.
Thanks, Bob! I thought it was posted somewhere, but I couldn't find
it. Sorry.
Margaret
Hi Avri and John,
I interpreted Harald's note differently than you did...
I took this part:
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
this issue.
To mean that Harald is _not_ starting the IETF Last Call as
Oh, in that case, I echo your concern...
We should have had a proposed final document in front of us before
the IETF LC was started.
Margaret
At 7:46 AM -0500 12/11/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
Margaret sez:
I took this part:
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
to
Hi All,
Here are my last call comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt.
I have included enough context that I hope you will be able to
understand where my comments apply. If not, just ask. My comments
are marked with '' in-line below. I am afraid that this is quite a
long list. In my opinion,
Just FYI --
At 7:58 AM -0800 12/9/04, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Should the IAOC not be satisified with these financial statements, the
IAOC shall have the right to request that the ISOC conduct an audit.
ISOC's finances are already audited by an independent auditing firm
on a yearly basis.
Margaret
I don't see how to interpret your current comments in relation to
this text, since:
- IAD decisions cannot be appealed
- Only procedure violations can be appealed
- The bodies appealed to can only advise the IAOC, they cannot (for
instance) overturn a contract.
Indeed, I wonder if we have
At 2:41 PM +0100 12/13/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott Bradner wrote:
I've gone various ways on this, but I think that imposing a duty of
regular payment on ISOC is appropriate - so that paying the IETF
late doesn't become a tempting cash-flow management tool. I would
be happy with a phrasing
add something like this to section 3
The IASA consists initially of a single full-time ISOC employee, the
IETF Administrative Director (IAD), an officer entitled to act on
behalf of the IASA at the direction of the IAOC. The IASA temporally
may act as the IAD if there is no IAD or the
RFC0885 Telnet end of record option
This option was, at least at one time, used for telnet clients that
connected to IBM mainframes... It was used to indicate the end of a
3270 datastream. I don't know if it is still used in that fashion,
but Bob Moskowitz might know.
RFC1041
Hi Leslie,
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying...
I'm not nearly so worried, on that front,
about the small donations front, as I am about the overall
principles of identifying IETF donations and achieving
some model for dependent sustainability.
What do you mean by dependent
I also agree.
If we are looking for an executive-level person capable of serving as
top-level management for a multi-million dollar activity, I think
that a professional executive search would be worthwhile.
Margaret
At 5:23 PM -0500 12/19/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
jck sed:
Personally, I think
Hi Bert,
At 11:13 PM +0100 12/21/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
May be I need to explain my (personal) thinking.
This is good, because your personal thinking does not match my
personal thinking and perhaps that is why we have been having trouble
coming to wording that seems right to both of us.
2. The IAD and IAOC shall not have any authority over the IETF
standards development activities. This document does not
modify ISOC's other roles related to the IETF standars process.
s/standars/standards
(Reason: This doc neither expands nor contracts the existing responsbilities)
OK?
wfm
I don't think that there is a substantive issue here, just an
editorial one. What about just reusing Jorge's text, like this:
Margaret said (quoting the draft):
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA
and the IETF all rights in data needed to satisfy the principle
One question arose when we were writing the original BCP that I
haven't seen discussed on the list...
Do we need a conflict of interest clause in the BCP? Something like:
The IAD and IAOC may not accept bids from nor establish contracts
with members of the IAOC, their family members, their
Hi Brian,
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
One question arose when we were writing the original BCP that I
haven't seen discussed on the list...
Do we need a conflict of interest clause in the BCP? Something like:
The IAD and IAOC may not accept bids from nor establish contracts
with members
I agree with Stephen and others. We could probably just add
something in the BCP saying that the IAOC should define and publish
an appropriate conflict of interest policy and leave it up to them.
Margaret
Thus spake Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I was thinking
Hi Bert,
W.r.t. the divisional vs cost center coounting
We got the text on Divisional Accounting and on sepearet set of
accounts from Glenn Ricart, so what should it be. If we do make a
change we need to make it consistent over the whole doc.
Probably best to keep that for working out when we
imo - the IAOC members should not be compensated for their time but
I think its reasonable for them to be reimbursed for expenses for
travel to meetings not held in the same place and time as IETF
meetings (or just before or after an IETF at the same location) - since
I would hope that almost all
Sorry, Scott, I did not mean to imply that you had said anything more
than you actually said. I was simply asking whether you (or others)
though that non-IETF travel for IESG and IAB members should also be
reimbursed if it is not covered by an employer.
Personally, I don't understand why we
At 11:37 AM +0100 1/2/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
activities and meetings of the IAOC. The IAOC Chair has no formal
duty to represent the IAOC, except as directed by IAOC consensus.
Isn't this enough?
Yes, I think so. That is
This proposal makes sense to me.
In particular, I agree with what the proposed text says and with what
it doesn't say.
Margaret
[yes, it's back to that grind again]
(This issue has been split from #727 in the issue tracker, because
it's more specific than the original)
Current draft says:
To be clear: I think that for insert thing that ISOC does, we
should have what is currently in the BCP:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately
after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9
I have a few comments on the latest IASA BCP draft, attached below.
I don't think that I disagree with the document in any major way, but
there are a few sections that are unclear enough (to me, anyway) that
I'd like to see them clarified before this is published.
Margaret
---
I have four
At 7:34 PM -0500 1/16/05, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
The following three terms are used in this document, and it is not
clear if there is intended to be any difference between them:
- IASA accounts (or IASA budget)
For IASA accounts in most instances it would be more helpful to
call them IASA Cost
At 3:15 PM +0100 1/17/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
If this is only to speak to the IASA activity, it becomes:
Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
the financial and legal structure of the IASA activity.
In particular, a detailed budget for the
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
--On 15. januar 2005 20:17 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following three terms are used in this document, and it is not
clear if there is intended to be any difference between them:
- IASA accounts (or IASA budget)
- IETF accounts
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
