Re: Terms and Conditions May Apply

On 13/10/2013 20:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I know we don't normally do movie plugs on this list, but anyone who's planning to attend the technical plenary in Vancouver could do worse than watch "Terms and Conditions May Apply". It covers both commercial and governmental invasions of privacy, a

Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

On 06/09/2013 04:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 06/09/2013 15:08, Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 5, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I'm sorry, I don't detect the emergency. I think we all knew NSA was collecting the data. Why didn't we do something about it sooner? Wasn't it an eme

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

On 31/07/2013 15:00, Barry Leiba wrote: The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall conversations and side meetings I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in throug

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: Last Call: (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC

On 07/06/2013 09:23, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Thanks for your respond below, AB Thank you Richard and Abdussalam for reaching agreement on this. I regard the issue as now closed. Regards Stewart Bryant (speaking as responsible Area Director)

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On 28/05/2013 15:36, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: It is difficult to read, because I am expecting a process and find something else, I started to read, but got confused (stoped reading), why you are titling it as creating WG-draft and mentioning the adoption into the document. I understand that the

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On 29/04/2013 20:39, Sam Hartman wrote: For what it's worth, I'm not finding the current discussion is providing me useful information for making decisions. It doesn't really matter to me whether the problem is selection of WG chairs or selection of IAB/IESG/IAOC after WG chairs are selected. I

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On 29/04/2013 06:57, Dave Crocker wrote: On 4/28/2013 10:52 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: Except that the IESG members select the wg chairs, which makes your baseline stastistic suspect; it's too easy for all sorts of biasing factors to sway the allocation of wg chair positions. Mike actually m

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On 29/04/2013 05:05, Michael StJohns wrote: At 08:53 PM 4/28/2013, Margaret Wasserman wrote: The question that people are asking is why the diversity of the IETF leadership doesn't reflect the diversity of _the IETF_. Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct que

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On 29/04/2013 01:53, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Tom, On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. wrote: If we required the IETF to reflect the diversity of people who are, e.g., IT network professionals, then the IETF would fall apart for lack of ability. […] If the ADs of the IETF have to represent

Re: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know

On 19/04/2013 19:13, Ted Hardie wrote: As a working group chair, when I stare out at a sea of faces looking for a scribe, the chances of my asking someone I know produces good minutes is much higher than my asking someone whose work I don't know. Think about how this often works in WGs without

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

AB Have you considered that the key thing to remember in the IETF is that: "Foo is broken because of (carefully reasoned) Bar" always trumps "Foo is OK because of who I am" ... and of course vise versa. Thus in the IETF influence is a function of the ability to carefully construct a well reason

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter 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

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00

on in general terms with the embedded routing draft cited as an example. Thanks, Acee On 3/6/13 7:01 AM, "Stewart Bryant" wrote: Chairs Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below. Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft? Certainly I think it would be

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-05

rcumstances the only auto config would be teh MAC addresses. Stewart On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Stewart Bryant <mailto:stbry...@cisco.com>> wrote: Resending due to Richards change of address. Stewart On 11/02/2013 23:45, Richard Barnes wrote: I

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

Sent from my iPad On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, "Abdussalam Baryun" wrote: > > If the date is > special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*. > Surely the correct requirement is : If the date is special then those RFCs MUST be *hysterical*. - Stewart

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-05

Resending due to Richards change of address. Stewart On 11/02/2013 23:45, Richard Barnes wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, pleaseseehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-05

On 11/02/2013 23:45, Richard Barnes wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, pleaseseehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before pos

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

That was the British use of the term "unlikely". Stewart Sent from my iPad On 28 Mar 2013, at 14:05, "Dave Crocker" wrote: > > > On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, >> becaus

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

David In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny, because the criteria would surely have included being experienced with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it seems unlikely that there would be

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

On 20/03/2013 10:53, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Stewart, On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: Age Disability Gender reassignment Marriage and civil partnership Pregnancy and maternity Race Religion and belief Sex Sexual orientation The U.S. has a similar (although not

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

On 19/03/2013 12:59, Margaret Wasserman wrote: On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Dan Harkins wrote: I'd love to get out of this rat hole. Perhaps the signatories of the open letter can restate the problem they see so it isn't made in terms of race and gender. The letter specifically mentioned the

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

A person's sex is of course only one of the recognized "protected characteristics". *http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/protected-characteristics-definitions/* The full set is: Age Disability Gender ressignment Marriage and civil partnetship Pregna

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00

Chairs Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below. Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft? Certainly I think it would be useful in IESG review. Stewart On 11/02/2013 21:15, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, "Ben Campbell" wrote: Ben:

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

On 03/03/2013 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Clearly the NomCom felt it was between a rock and a hard place; I just want to assert the principle that balancing both managerial and technical abilities is within NomCom's remit. Brian There is a subtly in the manager vs technical expert debate

Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]

We tend to think of these as state machines and describe them accordingly. There are other approaches which might be prevented if using a MUST when it wasn't needed. At 10:53 AM + 1/7/13, Stewart Bryant wrote: Speaking as both a reviewer and an author, I would like to ground this

Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]

Speaking as both a reviewer and an author, I would like to ground this thread to some form of reality. Can anyone point to specific cases where absence or over use of an RFC2119 key word caused an interoperability failure, or excessive development time? - Stewart

Re: WCIT outcome?

On 02/01/2013 13:44, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is, although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), and one of the task the ITU actually has performed very well, being a positive and constructive player. I don't know

Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote: Hi all, I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement. If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then that's fine, it can die. The IESG have seen (more-or-less)

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote: An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance >with a duly authorized court order. Would "An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally required to do so." fix the ambiguity? Stewart

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Dave If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Is that a correct assessmen

Re: [MARKETING] Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

On 11/08/2012 16:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote: When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in the time available. Brian +1 Stewar

Re: Updating RFC2119

On 22/07/2012 17:26, Melinda Shore wrote: On 7/22/12 3:17 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: IF x, THEN y: ELSE: ELSE IF: Please send your comments or advise, thanking you, Yes: you might try to explain what problem you think you're solving. Melinda Preferable with a list of RFC text snippets

Fwd: Re: [Idr] Last Call: (BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space) to Proposed Standard

FYI Copying to IETF list as this is an IETF LC Stewart Original Message Subject: Re: [Idr] Last Call: (BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space) to Proposed Standard Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:54:55 +0200 From: Claudio Jeker To: Stewart Bryant CC: On Tue

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10

On 26/04/2012 23:55, Ben Campbell wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document

Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 25-Apr-2012 update

. Regards, Joe Pelissier -Original Message- From: nvo3-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:55 PM To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant); n...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network

Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 25-Apr-2012 update

Does deleting "IETF" in the following sentence: "Any documented solutions will use existing IETF protocols if suitable." satisfy your concerns? - Stewart

WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 25-Apr-2012 update

This version of the NVO3 charter reflects the discussions on the list and comments received as of this afternoon. I propose to take this to the IESG for their second review tomorrow. Stewart == NVO3: Network Virtualization Over Layer 3 Chairs - TBD Area - Routing Area Director - Stewart

Re: [nvo3] Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN

On 25/04/2012 14:57, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A question in line. On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi Linda, Respect your advice. However, some wording in the proposed charter are too ambiguous, is it the intent? For example: "An NVO3 solution (known here as a Data C

Re: Key difference between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN

On 24/04/2012 22:39, Linda Dunbar wrote: I think that the Charter should have some text to identify the key differences between DCVPN and L2VPN/L3VPN. If the key differences aren't properly described, all the protocols developed for L2VPN and L3VPN will pop up as potential solutions. I do not

Re: Questions: WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 23-Apr-2012 update

On 24/04/2012 21:04, Adrian Farrel wrote: The NVO3 WG will write the following informational RFCs, which must be substantially complete before rechartering can be considered: "substantially complete" is sufficiently subjective to risk a riot at some point in the future! Can we be more precise

Re: Questions: WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 23-Apr-2012 update

On 24/04/2012 21:04, Adrian Farrel wrote: NVO3 will document the problem statement, the applicability, and an architectural framework for DCVPNs within a data center environment. Within this framework, functional blocks will be defined to allow the dynamic attachment / detachment of VMs to their

Re: Questions: WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 23-Apr-2012 update

On 24/04/2012 21:04, Adrian Farrel wrote: NVO3 will document the problem statement, the applicability, and an architectural framework for DCVPNs within a data center environment. Within this framework, functional blocks will be defined to allow the dynamic attachment / detachment of VMs to their

Re: Questions: WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 23-Apr-2012 update

On 24/04/2012 21:04, Adrian Farrel wrote: NVO3 will consider approaches to multi-tenancy that reside at the network layer rather than using traditional isolation mechanisms I know we have been dancing around this and there is a lot of paranoia. It is clear that we mean that no IETF technology wi

Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3) - 23-Apr-2012 update

Based on the list discussion, I have updated the draft NVO3 charter to take into consideration the feedback received so far. - Stewart NVO3: Network Virtualization Over Layer 3 Chairs - TBD Area - Routing Area Director - Stewart Bryant INT Area Adviser - TBD OPS Area Adviser - TBD Support

Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments

On 20/04/2012 14:36, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: What about the idea of requiring new Experimental documents to include text that indicates when the experiment is to be considered completed absent new work on it? Essentially, the document declares a date by which the experiment is considered c

Re: Additional Last Call: RFC-to-be 6478, previously draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10.txt (Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires) to Proposed Standard

To clarify The text that needs to be reviewed is the text in the RFC editor's queue http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6478.txt Note that the URL for the text in the RFC Editor's queue, provided in the original email, contains a spurious trailing space. Stewart On 16/04/2012 17:33, The IESG

Re: GenART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-06

Authors Please can you answer or address these comments Thanks Stewart On 16/03/2012 03:06, Martin Thomson wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve thes

Re: Last Call:(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC

On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote: - Original Message - From: "Stewart Bryant" To: "Fangyu Li" Cc:; Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote: I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1. For G.8113.1 had reach

Re: SIDR WG Virtual Interim Meeting, March 24, 2012

Ted I knew that SIDR was planning to hold this meeting. The SIDR WG currently needs more interaction time than can be accommodated within IETF week. I verified with a number of IESG colleagues that holding a meeting adjacent to an IETF meeting was within the guidelines. The important point is t

Re: Last Call:(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC

On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote: I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1. For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it co

Re: [PWE3] Last Call: (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard

2012, at 12:49 PM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote: Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and publish a new revision. Mustapha. -Original Message- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM To: draft-ietf-

Re: Last Call: (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard

Authors There was on point that I notice that you did not address from the AD review and so I am picking it up as a LC comment: In section 10 you say: "This document makes the following update to the PwOperStatusTC textual convention in RFC5542 [8]: " This update should be recorded in t

Fwd: Last Call: (LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements) to Proposed Standard

FYI MPLS and L2VPN WGs. Stewart Original Message Subject: Last Call: (LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements) to Proposed Standard Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:33:04 -0800 From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce CC:

Re: Last Call: (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC

On 01/03/2012 18:28, John C Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, March 01, 2012 13:02 -0500 Russ Housley wrote: Loa: Right now, there is no ITU-T approved document to reference. I am certainly not an expert on ITU-T process, but my understanding is that earliest that we could see an approved G.811

Re: [PWE3] FW: Last Call: (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC

PWE3 WG Please see the note further down the thread requesting that any discussion take place on ietf@ietf.org Stewart On 27/02/2012 14:27, Stewart Bryant wrote: My understanding is that the Recommendation called up by this draft proposes this as a new OAM be used for PWs. I do not think

Re: [PWE3] FW: Last Call: (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC

Feng Surely you agree with me that the primary consideration is that we should do what what we collectively believe is best for the Internet in the long term? There are many cases where the IETF has been presented with an existing implementation, but the collective view is that the pre-standards

Re: [PWE3] FW: Last Call: (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC

Daniel Shortage of ACh types was never an issue. The issue issue is the concerns articulated in draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations Stewart On 23/02/2012 10:35, Daniel Cohn wrote: Support - as there is no foreseen shortage in ACH types, I don't see a reason why this code point should

Re: Auth48 comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10

Cc:* pwe3-cha...@tools.ietf.org <mailto:pwe3-cha...@tools.ietf.org>; Stewart Bryant *Subject:* [PWE3] Auth48 comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10 During Auth 48, the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status found some issues with the acknowledgement procedu

draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-24.txt

I believe that version 24 addresses all of the actionable comments that the authors have received and I propose to continue with the publication process by requesting IESG review. Stewart Original Message Subject:Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-24.txt D

Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected

On 08/12/2011 18:51, Russ Housley wrote: Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs". After discussion with one of the RFC authors and IANA staff, I rejected the errata. The errata author is saying that in many registries, there ar

Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected

On 08/12/2011 19:18, Barry Leiba wrote: Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs". After discussion with one of the RFC authors and IANA staff, I rejected the errata. The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are n

Re: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

On 02/12/2011 13:29, t.petch wrote: Original Message - From: "Thomas Nadeau" To: "Huub helvoort" Cc: "Adrian Farrel"; ; "The IESG" ; Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:40 PM I disagree with the document shepherd's evaluation of this document. This document sets out to standardize an ad

Re: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

Adrian "It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of this document on the working group lists would be a distraction from the technical protocol work that the working groups need to do." I disagree with the document shepherd in his evaluation. The draft clearly sets out to enab

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

On 30/11/2011 05:46, Mark Andrews wrote: In message, Randy Bush writes: skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released within a week of this being made available? Aren't there a whole lot of other user gadget

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On 28/11/2011 19:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Dear Sam; Wearing no hats. This is my own personal take on matters. Also, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Please note that I, personally, do not think that this will be trivial or easy to come up with. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:59

Re: [mpls] R: FW: LastCall: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM

3) The global wide application of Ethernet services requires that the operator’s network must support Y.1731 Ethernet OAM, to guaranteeing the SLA for customers. Although many operators had expressed their requirements for MPLS-TP OAM using draft-bhh/G.8113.1 in IETF meetings and mail-list, b

Re: Last Call: (TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC

Tom "I would take issue with OSPF/ISIS and IPv4/IPv6. " Please can you expand a little on this. Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

On 05/10/2011 10:38, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo wrote: > major unresolved technical concerns Alessandro Please can I suggest that you write an internet draft detailing these "major unresolved technical concerns" so that we can all understand them. Such a draft needs to be technical, and de

Re: Last Call: (Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling) to Informational RFC

It is clear that: 1) RFC6074 is the IETF recommended approach. 2) That draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn is in active deployment. The question is whether the number of independent deployments of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn is increasing or not. In other words is this a legacy approach that will over tim

Re: [mpls] [PWE3] IETF Last Call comment on draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw

On 01/09/2011 17:07, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: Yaakov, You've written PW that starts in an MPLS-TP domain, can easily leak into a non-TP domain This is exactly the point that I've raised in my IETF LC comment on the draft (for MS-PW) - please see my email (to several lists) that ex

Re: FW: [PWE3] Last Call: (Using the Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in MPLS-TP) to Proposed Standard

On 01/09/2011 15:37, Yaakov Stein wrote: Stewart Was this email meant to address my email to the IETF discussion list (from Tues 16 Aug) or just the discussion on MPLS and PWE lists ? It does to SOME extent, as it leaves open the possibility of the GAL not being at BoS; but it does not r

Re: [mpls] [PWE3] IETF Last Call comment on draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw

Sasha On 30/08/2011 13:22, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: Stewart, I believe that your item #1 is presumably addressed by draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw (with the changes you’ve proposed), draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2 is an attempt to address your item #2, and your item #3 is not yet addressed. Is th

Re: [mpls] [PWE3] IETF Last Call comment on draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw

Reviewing this discussion there are three components. 1) The update of RFC5586 to allow PW to use the GAL. 2) The PW OAM application that is to use the GAL. 3) The label stack structure when teh GAL is used with a PW This draft is only concerned with point 1 above. Points 2 and 3 need to be re

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

On 25/08/2011 18:12, Mary Barnes wrote: I am also a fan of Minneapolis for meetings - the facilities at the Hilton are perfect for our needs. There's lots of food options. It has good air connections and there is decent pubic transport from the airport to the city. However, this seems to be

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

On 10/08/2011 19:35, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi Ben, Thanks for reading. Nits/editorial comments: -- section 1, paragraph 4: "...with relation to the programming..." ... in relation to... Yeah. RFC Editor note if Stewart is watching (although I'm guessing the RFC Editor might just fix this any

Re: notes from discussion of KARP design guidelines

On 12/07/2011 23:23, Joe Touch wrote: Hi, Joel (et al.), On 7/10/2011 7:10 AM, Joel Halpern wrote: Joe, THE KARP WG Chairs have reviewed your comments, in order to figure out what the best way to address them. We would appreciate it if you could engage in discussion of this proposal on the KARP

Re: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06

Rolf Thank you for the review On 19/05/2011 14:24, Rolf Winter wrote: CONTENT: Section 3 says: "If a flow LSE is present, it MUST be checked to determine whether it carries a reserved label. If it is a reserved label the packet is processed according to the rules associated with that reserv

Proposed text for IESG Processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata

The IESG is considering making this statement on the processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata. We would appreciate community feedback. Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June. Thanks Stewart == Draft text for IESG Statement on RFC Metadata Date: xx-xxx- This IESG

Re: Last Call: (PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol) to Proposed Standard

The RTG-dir review comments : http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg01533.html Should be addressed before publication. - Stewart On 25/05/2011 17:13, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions WG (pppext) to consider the fol

Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-04

I will put a note in the tracker Stewart On 15/03/2011 19:52, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: -Original Message- From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:26 PM To: draft-ietf-isis-genapp@tools.ietf.org Cc: General Area Review Team; The IETF Subj

Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-trill

On 20/12/2010 18:43, Donald Eastlake wrote: Hi, On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: "Radia" == Radia Perlman writes: Radia> No objections. Radia Can I get someone to confirm that the text in the proposed sentences is substantially true? I think so but I'm not an IS-I

Re: Towards consensus on document format

Michel Py wrote: Jorge Amodio wrote: Hard to believe but Morse is still in use and required for certain classes of radio operators. For good reasons; in difficult conditions, Morse still delivers the message when the voice has long stopped being recognizable. Morse would be like ASCII: def

Re: Corporate email attachment filters and IETF emails

Dave Cridland wrote: On Tue Dec 15 02:08:08 2009, IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote: On Mon, Dec XIV, MMIX at XX:X, Loa Andersson wrote: > great idea - and we should als adopt Latin numbers! ... > Loa Andersson > > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager > Ericsson /// > phone: +46 10 717 52 13 >

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements (Requirements for OAMin MPLS Transport Networks) to Proposed Standard

Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote: ITU-T SG15 has a history of OAM protocol development for transport technologies. This expertise has led to development of an OAM methodology and definition approach as documented in G.806. Jonathan Unfortunately the latest version of G.806 is showing up as pre-publ

Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

Noel Chiappa wrote: > Are our members who are Falun Gong practitioners going to be > persecuted for their beliefs while attending IETF? Are our members > who are active in Tibetan or Taiwanese independence movements going > to be quietly picked up off the street outside our venue

Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

Paul It appears that people have forgotten that, when needed for clear artwork, RFCs can be published in PDF format. This has been done in the past, and can be done again in the future. If WGs are not doing some work because of fear of not having it published as an RFC because of the artwork,

Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format

Colin Perkins wrote: I have no significant problems using xml2rfc, and find it easier to write Internet-Drafts using xml2rfc than I did using nroff, LaTeX, or Microsoft Word. +1 ... and I am quite happy to use the online compiler. Stewart ___ Ietf

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

Pete Getting rid of a page-layout format as our authoritative form is primary. Using characters that do not occur in English is next down the list. Everything else is extra. Surely maximizing the probability of correct understanding by the reader is primary. Everything else is just a mechanism.

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

John Leslie wrote: Stewart Bryant wrote: That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a reader centric view. I must dissent. Reader-centric views belong to publishing entities that generate income (whether by purchase, subscription, or advertising). There

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 3 jul 2009, at 13:13, Stewart Bryant wrote: That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a reader centric view. Do we have any objective information on what format produced the clearest information transfer in the reader. Well, readers

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 3 jul 2009, at 0:35, Pete Resnick wrote: A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently constrained. Or, gee, we could generalize to a very constrained XML format XML isn't a display format. As Dave put it, the current RFC format is "unfriendly,

Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

To save time, I would suggest adopting the Patent Office rules on Perpetual Motion. People advocating for a change to facilitate figures (or to allow complicated math, such as tensor analysis) should have an existence proof, i.e., a document that requires the change to be published. (A docu

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

Tim Bray wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently constrained. HTML allows for the reflowing of text, solving issues with text and screen sizes. It's also extremely widely implemented, so it's easy to displa

Re: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP

Stephen Farrell wrote: Something like: "This is the list of those nominated (or self-nominated) for IESG positions. The nominees have said that they're willing to serve if selected, but there is no implication that they consider the incumbent unsuited for re-appointment." Presumably there wo

Re: gen-art review of draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-06.txt

Scott - In this one paragraph: Note that although Figure 4 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may transit more one S-PE along its path. This architecture is applicable when the S-PEs are statically chosen, or when they are chosen using a dynamic path selection mechanism. Both direct

Re: Abstract on Page 1?

Margaret Wasserman wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR information to

Re: LORAN is making a comeback..

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: Take it off line. This has nothing to do with the IETF. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Except as requirements for TICTOC. Stewart __

Re: Friday experiment

Another option would be to run until 1300, that's still early enough to have lunch but it does give us a 1.5 hour extra timeslot but only takes that 1.5 hours, not 3.5 like the 1300 - 1500 timeslot so people with flights at 1700 or even 1600 can possibly attend. We could maybe start earlier on

Re: Missing Materials

Eric Missing drafts draft-shen-csi-ecc-00.txt (wg=csi) draft-ietf-ccid4-02.txt (wg=dccp) draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11.txt (wg=eai) draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt (wg=eai) draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt (wg=ntp) draft-ietf-psamp-info-07.txt (wg=ipfix) draft-aitken-ipfix-new-i

  1   2   >