On Aug 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
If the problem is we don't know who's speaking, then fix that problem. In
WGs I go to, both the WG chairs and the jabber scribes regularly yell NAME!
if someone forgets to say it. Unlike DNS Ops, this isn't rocket
On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
The participation in the IETF is already pseudonymous. I have a driver's
license, a passport, and a national ID card, all proving that my name is
indeed Yoav Nir. But I have never been asked to present any of them at the
IETF.
While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons, reading
the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that remote
people see the slides at the same time as local people. For that, it seems to
me that Meetecho support does exactly what is needed. You
On Aug 4, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
No, I use a credit card in the name of my company's head of purchasing, so
not in my name.
Why wouldn't that be sufficient to identify you? Is the head of purchasing
going to protect your anonymity?
I would never lie at
On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
glenn.d...@nbcuni.com wrote:
-1 on doing it during the winter speaking as a Californian who doesn't even
own a winter coat
A winter coat used to be a prerequisite for attending winter IETF, and I don't
think that's a bad thing. You can
On Aug 2, 2013, at 9:13 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
In my opinion part of the answer has been provided by Brian Carpenter. The
other part of the answer is the minutes. The rest of the answer is in
something mentioned in the Note Well.
Do you think I said something that contradicts what
On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Perhaps that doesn't bother other folk very much but the differential result
was so extreme -- as a single-event experiment -- it strongly suggests we
should not call for hand-raising. (The likely explanations for the
On Aug 3, 2013, at 6:34 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
That one sentence covers all the points which are relevant. It's an Area
Director decision. It does not require consensus or any kind of number game.
The working group charter explicitly requires IETF consensus. But if you mean
On Aug 2, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Venue was great, food options here and in the city were great, all-around
great experience. Let's come again!
+1
As venues go, this was a good one.
On Aug 2, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Roberto Peon grm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd just prefer a venue where we had temps in the various conference/meeting
rooms and facilities which were reliably below 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, Autumn IETF in Berlin?
:)
We actually had a talk about this amongst several IESG and former IESG members.
I am not going to report the results, because I might remember them wrong,
but my thoughts on this are as follows:
- The hum is not a means of determining consensus; it is a means of determining
the sense of the
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
{{citation-needed}} - I've only ever seen specification conformance in
procurement documents for military systems, never for anything else.
It's quite common to see a list of supported RFCs in the spec sheet for a piece
of
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would be
a good thing for folk with spare time to do. i am sure we could arrange
pointer space on the wg's web page.
Effective video presentations are _hard_.
On Jul 24, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would envisage a fair amount of chatter about
specific remote-participation issues, like this new codec isn't
working for me, is it OK for anyone else using browser version on
operating system version?
We get
As I mentioned to Mary privately, yogurt with fish in it is very common
(yoplait, for example) and vegetarians who know that kosher gelatin is made of
fish don't eat it; this can result in the food options at the cookie table
being, essentially, cookies, which are of course a terrible thing to
On Jul 16, 2013, at 11:03 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
And, if it is not and it is chosen anyway
(either deliberately after considering other factors or out of
ignorance), who is accountable and to whom?
Part of the value of writing a document like this is to capture the issues
On Jul 16, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
I suggest more cheese and crackers, sandwiches, etc.
and perhaps less cookies.
+1
Celery will not prevent a blood sugar crash.
On Jul 16, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I venture that starve is never a real outcome, but go to a supermarket or
bring food in your luggage are alternatives that need some planning and are
a
small inconvenience.
Try it sometime, then get back to us. :)
I
On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
It should not be an over-riding consideration.
If not, then what _would_ be an over-riding consideration?
I did the research on the venue for the Dublin IETF and concluded that I could
not stay at the hotel, so I stayed
On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally feel that this is maybe one of not easier part for western
people to do in today IETF. and chinese's names sound maybe more diffcult
than other eastern languages.
I think these documents are useful for IETFers who
On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca
wrote:
Is there a
way to guess what order a name is written in? Sometimes it's not easy
for non-Sinophones to know which part is the given name and which part
is the family name.
It's usually in the Chinese order in the
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies that send
large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat distasteful. It also
doesn't match my experience. I am sure that _some_ attendees from large
companies are just as partisan as you fear, but some are not. So I am
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
few megacorporations?
(That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
I don't know the answer to that question, but it's an interesting
On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a bit
more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to find some
criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants.
Yup. E.g.,
On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay more
attention to this thread ...
If you don't read ietf, you don't get to participate in the consensus... ;)
On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?
Acculturation: the opportunity over time to absorb the IETF culture and become
a part of it. The other points you raised are valid, but this
On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
must have attended at least 5 meetings of the last 15 and including one of
the last 5.
may be a good compromise. Also, I would suggest one of the last 6
(instead of 5). I guess in two years the IETF does not
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
Perhaps we could have a non-WG mailing list so that people could submit
proposals for review prior to the expert review process. Even some of the
get off my lawn crowd offered good suggestions for this EUI case (make 1
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't know about that one. In the US, at least, legal mandates
have typically led social change, at least when it comes to civil
rights, etc.
Yup. First the Civil Rights act, then Selma... ;)
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Yeah, and act is what Americans call statutes, and Selma is a city in
Alabama where there was some controversy about voting rights. You sure need
to know a lot of Americana to participate meaningfully in some of these
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:43 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Assuming we care about stability and interoperability, wouldn't it
make sense for the IETF to spin up a WG, collect these drafts, clean
up the language, make sure they agree with the widely implemented
reality, and publish them?
On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
I suspect the closest we get to getting an idea of IETF consensus is the
interest gauging at the beginning of the process, though interestingly this is
only positive interest - objections to doing the
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have
more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF
participant than Pete does...
FWIW, until I read Pete's document on consensus, I thought
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:51 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a
document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or
will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and
effort.
If you say
On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
You
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
how much process chaos can we create?
Don't ask questions you don't want answered! :)
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups
are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon.
Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
The IETF last call is for catching
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want him to
write?
If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF consensus for a document
that gets no response in its Last
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
That in turn presumes we are defaulting to publication in all cases, and that
in turn seems problematic to me, because his answers become, in order:
a) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get done
under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus without any
IETF comments?)
I would expect that you'd start
On Jun 10, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Bradner, Scott s...@harvard.edu wrote:
I do not see all that much help in having someone list reasons they support
publication unless
there is some particularly wonderful feature or the prose is particularly
clear
I don't really see any point in expressing
On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:19 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
I don't think there is another way to indicate you've reviewed a draft and
found no issues. Surely rough concensus must include confidence that
that silence means more than ignorance and I'm not aware of any mechanism
to evaluate
On Jun 10, 2013, at 7:21 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I agree that one-line statements are not of much use. It's more tedious to
write a statement to support a proposal than an objection to it. Non-silent
Last Calls usually draw objections. It's going to be difficult to balance
that
On Jun 10, 2013, at 8:31 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Which breaks some of the reasons why we do IETF last calls. WGs do get too
focused on a problem and do fail to do a balance response to problems.
If enough IETF last call people agree that the working group made a mistake,
that
On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I recommend to add a column for subjects (number of subjects),
because the number of subject participated in is very important is
such summary.
It has always been my assumption that the point of this summary was
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman
a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.orgmailto:last-c...@ietf.org and
leave this list for everything else.
The discussion still has to happen somewhere. I certainly am
On Jun 7, 2013, at 12:04 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the
whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is
an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted
content.
A penalty for top-posting sounds okay to me!
On May 31, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Riccardo Bernardini framefri...@gmail.com wrote:
Then I would suggest Antarctica as permanent location for future IETF
meetings. :-) Maybe the only drawback is hotel availability, but
nothing that a handful of tents and sleeping bags cannot cure...
Also, penguins
On May 31, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Elwyn Davies
elw...@dial.pipex.commailto:elw...@dial.pipex.com wrote:
Don't they use the ADs (Area Drones) controlled from the IESG bunker?
Nope, ADs are autonomous.
On May 31, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i too, but tokyo. induce. answer, remote participation. i hope that a
decade from now many of us will not need to fly.
We could just always meet in Tokyo. I'd be down with that...
:)
On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
If I had been able to figure
out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and
not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would have,
so I'm out of ideas and it is possible that Joe is too.
Even if you
On May 29, 2013, at 5:51 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Here's what I would be told: Scenario a and Scenario b do not have privacy
implications as they have been reviewed by a respected organization in
Canada. I would also be told that there is an Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of
On May 29, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I hope the responsible AD for this document will not count me as
participating in the consensus on this document; it was not my intention in
making the suggestion I made to indicate that I favor publishing the
document
On May 28, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
Riiight. That is why one never has to attend an IETF meeting in person to
serve on NOMCOM, one does not need travel support from one's employer to be
on the IESG, and why people who never come to IETF meetings are the
On May 24, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Lou Berger lber...@labn.net wrote:
I personally am a big fan for going to uninteresting locations in their
off season. Although, perhaps I'm alone in liking Minneapolis in the
winter as an IETF destination...
You are not. Although Vancouver seems to have taken
I must say that I have enjoyed reading the discussion between the three of you,
and think it is immensely valuable in explaining what the IESG ought to be
doing. You three should write it up.
On May 16, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
http://dcrocker.net/#gender
That's what I do. It gets a bit awkward with verb agreement and constructs
like themself, which elicits the dreaded red snake underline of doom. But I
find it more comfortable than just
On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear enough.
At the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked because they
provide capabilities beyond what seems necessary to acquit their
On May 15, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'm impressed that you have such a specific interpretation that this
criteria refers to the entire document, even when it talks about the
feature of a protocol.
The motivation for a feature of a protocol is not clear enough. What's
On May 15, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
You don't agree that the motivation for the difference between using 16-bit
vs. 32-bit ExIDs is sufficient, even though that is already discussed in the
document.
I don't think this is a topic that the IETF as a whole is likely to
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I suggest that the former is a bad result. Not that the authors/WG will ignore
the discussion, but if they disagree on something the AD considers very
important, the authors/WG have no incentive to participate in the
On May 14, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) flu...@cisco.com
wrote:
2) On the point of what the IESG should be doing, I would like to see the
whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria document and will stay
within that (or change it if they disagree). The cross area
On May 14, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
I've not found that a real problem. When its happened that we
did turn up something bigger than we thought after the telechat
(and updating your discuss points before or during the telechat
is considered fair game)
On May 14, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable. If there is no way
to address it, then it is not a discuss. But required to clar is the wrong
picture as far as I can tell.
Exactly right. It would actually be
On May 14, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
And of course, that's still everyone's preference. But the reality is
that the imposition of the Discuss is an assertion that changes are
being required.
No, it absolutely is not. That may have been the theory when you were
On May 14, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
That is what happens exactly because the DISCUSS holds up the document, and
most ADs don't want to burn time stalling their documents if there's a way
around that delay.
It can only happen if an author values getting their document
On May 4, 2013, at 10:26 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
However, that is a bit of a problem, because I think it's fairly rare for
documents to get additional review at last call time. Changing the name
probably won't fix that.
It feels like unless something is particularly
On May 3, 2013, at 4:24 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
We really do need a tool, the like of which I was using 40 years ago
when writing code, that allows patches to be applied independently and
temporarily to see what it then looks like and if agreed that it looks
good, incorporating
On May 2, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The RFC then and now takes around 100 days (with lots of variation
between the then and the now, of course.)
Bear in mind that one of the delays that can occur and is credited to the RFC
editor is author delays in AUTH48; I
On May 2, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
People who aren't aware of it should look at the httpbis github experiment.
The pull request is a powerful model of WG collaboration.
Several authors in the dhc working group have been doing the same thing, to
good effect.
On May 2, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If the community does not have enough interest in the work to write it well,
it has bigger problems that won't be remedied by more RFC Editor effort...
Also worth considering is that if a document is hard to read, it is hard to
On May 2, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
How do we deal with sites?
How do we deal with vendors that ship such product?
I say we punch 'em.
Seriously, the IETF doesn't have an enforcement arm. It's up to buyers to
check to see that what they are buying is protocol
On May 1, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote:
Let's rename last call to
something like IETF review and stop giving people the wrong
expectations. Review outside the WG is vital, can be done repeatedly,
and must be done by the whole IETF at least once.
Yup. The term last
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Black, David david.bl...@emc.com wrote:
I have no problem with the field being a binary identifier, but I think
implementers should be put on notice that binary comparison of human input
Unicode strings doesn't work as expected unless some things are done to
make
On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) v...@cisco.com wrote:
But I don't really see this as a big issue and the must is the lower-case
variant anyway.
There's a big debate about whether this makes any difference. It's generally
thought to be better not to say must if you don't
On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:08 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
If raising awareness and sensitivity
isn't enough to get people to think about and make decisions
differently
Statistical analysis shows that even when peoples' awareness is raised, biases
continue to exist, not because the
On Apr 18, 2013, at 5:02 AM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
but you can become prominent in the sense that people might say this
document hasn't had enough review. Let's ask so-and-so to read it
Yes, it's worth noting that working group chairs are often desperate for people
about whom
On Apr 18, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
What is this cure of which you speak? This diversity discussion has
included statements like:
Personally, not wearing an AD hat or attempting to anticipate the conclusions
of the study group, I think the cure is to encourage
On Apr 18, 2013, at 2:33 PM, James Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
I believe I did myself a disservice in assigning such a high ratio without
saying it feels like 70:1, which it does. But I'd truly be surprised if
it's only 10:1 - and you can't make effective and accurate estimates based on
On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
Actually I think it would be better to explicitly state what is intended
to be done.
This is what we are trying to figure out!
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77479.html), but
in the current context it bears repeating: Here in the IETF we accept
that low-status
On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:44 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
So perhaps, to reduce the bias, e.g. towards western white, any system
of choosing should give preference to the views of those who do not
attend IETF meetings, for whom judgement is based solely on the
contributions the person in
On Apr 12, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
During IESG review, the ADs from other areas should
restrict their comments to issues related to their area.
The final review should avoid changes made
which are feature redesigns or feature enhancements,
and limit changes
On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
It gives the IESG an exemption to participating in WG and IESG last call
processes, which then frustrates the rest of the community that does not have
this opportunity.
You could equally say that the IETF last call frustrates the
On Apr 15, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Maybe we should have an IETF first call (for objections), rather than
last call.
I think that would look a lot like a DoS attack on the IETF, but it would be
nice if there were a way to make it work.
On Apr 13, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Me too, but when you have a diverse pool of people
who feel strongly about open standards, rough consensus and running code
and you choose only one category of the group, then we need to think
about how we end up
On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I'm currently seeing a document with some serious defects in
IETF Last Call (rfc2560bis) and an apparent desire to have
it Rubberstamped by the IESG (recycling at Proposed Standard).
FWIW, I raised the same question during IESG
On Apr 12, 2013, at 4:01 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Let's take IAOC members as an example. NomCom chose two men from the United
States. The IAB chose a man from the United States. The IESG chose a man
from the United States. The ISOC Board of Trustees chose a man from the
United
On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:32 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Thomas Narten mentioned that: we have the tendency to pick the people we
know and trust, which is understandable. How many IAB members feel strongly
about open standards, rough consensus and running code? To know the answer I
would
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
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 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
On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Thanks for your efforts on this document. Your first review was in May 2011,
and the document has improved greatly for you continued pushing on the
concerns.
Can we take this to mean that the concerns expressed in your
On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.commailto:melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway this strikes me as an unfortunate use of those documents.
Although this is not entirely a good thing, it is worth noting that one purpose
in creating borders is to lure people across
On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.commailto:melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the timing of this strikes me as one of those oh moments, following as
quickly on the heels of the diversity discussion. Not so much because of
language and culture issues (although
On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.commailto:melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Your beef isn't with me, it's with Måns.
I've got no beef with either of you—I'm a vegetarian! :)
(I actually found what Måns had to say valuable, which illustrates one of the
great
On Apr 6, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's terrible for the IETF. It completely nullifies the NomCom
random selection process; all the suggestions in RFC 3797 seem
to be blown away by this.
This seems like exactly the sort of problem that Jari's
On Apr 5, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
There are days when I'm really glad to be part of this community ...
Yes, but the question is, is this such a day? :)
On Apr 3, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com wrote:
I've tried to imagine using Facebook-like system for IETF work, and it is
strangely compelling ...
It would, however, be nice if it were peer-to-peer rather than monolithic.
On Apr 2, 2013, at 6:41 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Kids! Remember, if we're not bright enough to do physics, we can always do
engineering, the slow younger brother of physics!
Is your point that if we do an engineering solution, that will slow things down
enough that we won't have packet
101 - 200 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
