The draft does not list ITU in abbreviation, there are many terminology not
clear but more general definition. I prefer specific defining. Also many
times refers to references to define without mentioning what was that
definition, is that defined only in ITU and IETF cannot define its
technology,
Yes, my comment meant that it is a reply to the review message that there
may be not clear definition from other participant point of view. Sorry
my review is still not complete, I will send it. Do you mean my reply is
not right, if I like to give a short comment before my full review.
AB
On
The DT I am discussing has no clear problem to solve, the appointment is
not clear, I have been asking for a WG but only DT was done. The DT has no
milestones and no clear objectives, is it a DT or a WG. We don't need the
DT to adopt or agree on any real draft effort submitted, it is the
community
,
but the authors are gaining so far. I prefer that all comments should be at
the IETF list after the IETF LC to give chance for discussion if needed (as
a community DISCUSS position).
AB
On Sunday, October 13, 2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar
I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with
community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a
true work open to IETF. I still did not get a reply to my request to know
what is the DT authority, very strange name without any procedure in IETF,
Hi Pete,
I object if the draft excludes remote participants opinions/feedbacks, the
IETF WG list is the main place for measuring consensus not a physical
limited room located in a region. Some WGs' Chair just follow room's
consensus, or f2f participants arguments, which is not best practice
Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 11.10.2013
Last Call For the General Area
I-D reviewed: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
++
Hi Pete and Jari,
The documents provide important examples which are real within IETF, and
needs to be studied/analysed more as case studies
I did not like the change of the title which was suggested in diversity
list. the first title was related to IETF, because we need to attract more
other regions in IETF or to facilitate the improve of other region's
participation. The draft's solution was to recommend fellowship (should not
be the
I like your approach and comments, and I think that our ietf leaders are
not always leaders but in IESG they are the managers. Mostly ietf ruled by
community consensus not presidents, so we have many leaders including you
and some others may be additional leaders for the community. The ietf wants
I agree to appoint leader under clear procedures, so I am not sure of
representing without procedure is authorised in ietf, but I trust that ietf
leaders do practice procedure, but not sure if discussion meant that there
was something missing in this statement practice.
AB
On Wednesday, October
There should be known limits for chairs, leaders, only if the procedures
have mentioned no limits of representation. Trust is there but still there
is also levels and limits for trust and representation.
AB
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew
I agree with Melinda, IETF WG Chair is the key to practice guiding the
group to clear consensus, otherwise guide them to best/productive
discussions related to improvements in the work or in the consensus.
AB
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote:
On
Hi Michael,
I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF
we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual
document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF
should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it
While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of
consensus do not belong on a WG page.
Where do they belong? I prefer that they belong under the Area page, but is
there an area page, not sure why was that not a good idea.
But, if the document was the result of
consensus,
I agree with both, but maybe the problem is that people from academia are
not participating enough to report to ADs their concerns (e.g. what is bad
in ietf, or lack of diversity), on the other hand, people from industry are
more organised and don't need/want the academians ideas/participations
On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.
This document seems to me to be:
1. Out of scope for the IETF.
Please define what is the IETF scope? IMHO, IETF is scoped to do with
IPv6 devices requirements and implementations. Do you think
I agree with you SM, politics and considering countries names in that
way, that is out of scope of IETF. Comments below,
AB
On 9/8/13, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 07:07 08-09-2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You mean like Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia
There were people from
On 9/6/13, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Tell me what the IETF could be doing that it isn't already doing.
I'm not talking about what implementors and operators and users should
be doing; still less about what legislators should or shouldn't be
doing. I care about all
On 9/4/13, IAB Chair iab-ch...@ietf.org wrote:
As requested by the community, the IAB has decided to open a mailing list
to
discuss topics regarding the intersection of Internet governance and IETF
technical work. In particular, this list will focus on issues relating to
Internet governance
review and comments on the draft. I have some answers
inline.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 05.09.2013
I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results
Received your Request dated 04.09.2013
On 9/1/13, Eduardo A. Suárez esua...@fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar wrote:
What is unbearable to me is that in more than one discussion in a
mailing list someone's opinion is censored because misspell their
ideas or opinions.
I don't think that is unbearable, usually in communications between IP
The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 05.09.2013
I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results
Received your Request dated 04.09.2013
++
The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the
survey is not easy to be used as source of information related
On 9/1/13, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Hi Eduardo,
At 23:19 31-08-2013, Eduardo A. Suarez wrote:
I think both parties have to try to express clearly. Those who do not
have the English as their native language should also try to do so.
Agreed.
What is unbearable to me is that in
...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 August 2013 12:27
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call:
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF
Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 26.08.2013
As per the IESG request for review dated 19.08.2013
I support the draft, thanks, below are my comments,
Overall The draft is about 3GPP Mobile Devices but the draft has no
normative reference to such device
I experienced rude respondings in IETF list and in one WG list, I don't
beleive that it is culture of IETF participants, but it seems that some
people should understand to be polite and reasonable in such organisation
business. Finally, the rude responding is not controled by the chair of
thoes
Hi Aaron,
I will add that it depends on that is there some one stopping rude actions
in IETF, or is it just free to post any respond. I know that the procedure
of IETF does mention such actions, but I don't see practicings so far,
AB
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Aaron Yi DING
Hi Hadriel,
I agree that charging IETF participants with any money is not a good idea,
but charging participants with some effort/work/contribution to do is
needed. For example, participants SHOULD do some work in IETF, either
review, authoring, attending-meetings, commenting on lists, etc.
I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into
the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications.
I don't think majority in IETF think it is meaningless so that is why I
want to clarify the meaning and discuss what most may not want to discuss.
If
Hi Adam,
I don't agree with you. I am a remote participant (2 years and never
attended meetings) in the IETF organisation, do you think that IETF is
fare in treating remote participants? I think the current IETF
direction is in favor of attended-meeting participants, so IMHO one
reason of some
Hi Thomas,
Please note that the week did not end yet (IMO ends on Saturday night)
but your week is starting from Friday and end on Thursday night. If we
follow your week then I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the
end of working days of 5 in each week). However, in my comment below I
On 8/3/13, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 3 aug 2013, at 08:46, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the end of working days of 5 in
each week).
However, in my comment below I
will follow the week as done in world
I agree with some of your points, thanks, comments below,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/07/a-diverse-ietf/
Also, I wanted to let everyone know that tomorrow in the Administrative
Plenary, Kathleen Moriarty and
IMHO, The presenters are MUST, but the time channel for presenting is the
problem or boring factor. I mentioned before that we need short
presentations 5 minutes, and more discussions.
AB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47
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
through meeting sessions and discussion lists. So I agree with Keith that
meeting sessions have low discussions, and may discourage remote
participants
comments below
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:38:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
written words are usually better understood than
Hi Jari,
I have gave many feedback on the diversity issue, and I thank you for the
article, I agree with iot totally. I will repeat my comment, that the
design team of diversity SHOULD make clear what is its goals and
milestones, therefore, we can give better feedback, but leaving that hidden
to
Hi Barry,
Sorry for long meesage,
I will give you a real example which I experienced that includes my request
regarding a WG ietf draft that has no presenter but two people in the WG
that want discuss it in meetings as below real story. I want to confirm my
statement of hidden
On 7/27/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
one locates it (IETF Home Page - IESG - Members) one even gets
contact information as a bonus. And the listing of AD names is
pretty useless without contact info.
As from my remote participant experience in IETF Routing Area (rtg), I
was
I agree with your suggestion Christer. Remote-participants have right
to register their attendance because they do attend remotely and IETF
SHOULD register their information if available. Last meetings I did
not like that I was not registered because I am remote, but now I feel
more welcomed.
I
On 7/24/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 09:22 +0300 IETF Chair
ch...@ietf.org wrote:
I wanted to let you know about an experiment we are trying out
in Berlin.
...
But we want as many people as possible to become involved in
these efforts, or at
On 7/26/13, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
The consensus of the IETF is that:
newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group
This is bad for IETF, why no
Thanks, I agree with your points/suggestions. I want to add;
a) Work/Participation in IETF is remotely to run its daily business.
b) Newcomers (how many we have per meeting); are always welcomed, no
one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years, so some
how could we say
disruption has caused problems for meeting
effectiveness - e.g. a blizzard on the east coast of the USA.
Pat
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Bob Hinden
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:56 PM
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf
Hi Bob,
thanks and respond below,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
AB,
IMO the questions/comments that may be ok to see added to discuss are:
1) Venue selection and operation of the IETF meetings
- Selection of the current
Hi Bob,
IMO the questions/comments that may be ok to see added to discuss are:
1) Venue selection and operation of the IETF meetings
- Selection of the current venue and was there difficulties until
getting to this meeting session time. From the managing meeting
(providing
Hi Hui Deng,
My comment for the draft is that I want to relate it to IETF as below,
which I see that already some on IETF addressed by draft already call
names including regional calling culture, which is excellent. The
document will increase awareness and make the IETF culture more
diversive.
Hi Paul,
I agree with you if someone attends without presenting work, but I
think the fees is reasonable if we compare with other conferences fees
per day (don't forget your free to presentations of your docs and get
feedback from many sessions, this may change in future if higher
load). If the
The informational-draft does not define IP anycast or does not refer
to a document that defines the IP anycast (anycast was defined as
refer to rfc1546). However, I think it is a draft for anycast
services/methods in IP protocols (Internet Anycast), not only IP
anycast.
AB
On 7/3/13, IAB Chair
This message is reply to an author of a new draft under ietf discussion.
If this list is not the correct place to discuss such matter, then the
list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to
discuss such new work.
+
Hi Moonesamy,
Thanks Moonesamy,
I support the draft, it will give all participants from all the world equal
opputunity. I made input related to this on the list because I found that I
am remote participant and there was limits and conditions which I don't
want. However, there may be some reasons that IETF done
As per a request I received from you
Dear Bernard,
Chair, IETF Remote Participation Services Committee
Thanks for your message. I am a remote participant that never ever came to
the IETF meetings and not sure if I would. I think my experience may help
your committee
a communication delay tolerance time for about three
months because people may be busy, but don't forget my requests :-)
On 3/10/13, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
To: Bob Hinden, (presented at IAOC overview)
My question to Bob; why not document the feedback (of meeting venues
* For Week 25 in 2013
About 17 subjects discussed, about 6 IETF LCs, about 3 Gen-Art Review.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Messages | Bytes | Who
+--++--+
1.83% | 3 | 2.01% | 25980 |
Hi Stewart,
I don't have any problem with the report/reminder only that it has missing
important information. The subjects of discussions are not counted, so I
counted them. Also the report does not distinguish between general-posting
and replying to IETF LCs.
AB
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:00
Commenting is already an action taken, so we thank who made effort to bring
the points forward. I always add my comments even though I had given no
title. However, thoes folks that have been given titles by the IETF I think
they should do actions more regarding this diversity issue as
I think all need mentoring. It is a both way learning for top and down
levels. So maybe newcomer can be mentoring to management of what is a
newcomer like these days :-)
AB
On 6/18/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I am rather disappointed that there hasn't been any followup to the
diversity discussion that took place at the plenary.
I thought there are some people following/working this up, and made
some progress. However, I agree that I seen no
The IETF Last Call has finished after 06.06.13 and now you request
discussions. I think only IESG can call for discussions not editors.
On 6/10/13, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote:
We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment
from Adrian during IETF LC (which
A comment is a comment (important for discussing) which I want to see,
no matter if content-free or not, the origin requester (IETF Last
Call/WGLC) of such comments SHOULD specify which type of comment they
want if necessary. As long as it is a comment-on-discuss-lists any can
ask questions to the
how to configure RFCs 5614 and 5820 for the special case of a single-hop
network.
Richard
On 6/6/13 3:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from
them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned
in the I-D
Hi thomas,
AB Comment on the summary report
I recommend to add a column for subjects (number of subjects),
because the number of subject participated in is very important is
such summary.
I think the pupose of this summary should be added as well in each
post, I don't know why, only I expect
to IESG only the complaint request of
acknowledgement and the community reviews in IETF-LC. The wg chair
mentioned my complaint in his report. I wait for the IESG decisions
related to this I-D.
Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
A Participant working in IETF (subscribed)
A Memebr of Internet Society
I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from
them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned
in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last
reminder). The message [3] proposes using RFC5444 into this I-D, or
raise the question of
thinking much of the business, the
IETF business will only progress with acknowledging the volunteers).
I do not propose to do an explicit consensus call on whether Abdussalam
should
be named in this draft.
IMO, it should have been done in the WG.
AB
From: Abdussalam Baryun
Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:06/06/2013
Reviewer Comment A3: Use Cases not considered and the Information Bases Threats.
+++
*Use-cases threats*
Reading
-03
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:06/06/2013
Reviewer Comment A3: Use Cases not considered and the Information Bases
Threats.
+++
*Use-cases threats*
On 6/5/13, Thomas Meier nscl...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello,
I want to forward AODV messages over a tunnel (don't worry, it's not for a
wormhole attack).
its ok, but if it was my AODV network I will be worried. Tunneling is
not understood only if I know what network are you tunneling through!!
In
Reply to your request dated 05.06.2013
Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Dated 06.06.2013
The I-D: draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04
A1 Comments: Overall
Overall, why does the document start with IEEE before IETF. If this is
a document produced by us as IETF, we need to focus on the
relationship of OUR
I want to discuss this issue of collaboration if I get a
response/permission. How can the IETF participant collaborate with
IEEE 802 memebr/participant? From the I-D I see that the IETF
participant NEEDs the IETF WG chair to do that, but the IEEE 802
participant does not need any chair.
Are we
I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the
I-D. I complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged
by editors even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying
not be discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final
Hi Adrian
My comments below,
On 6/2/13, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward
reference
to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec
Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently
Thanks Mark,
This is very interesting results, it is ok if not 100% correct which I
think the error can be less than 10%, but I may have different
analysis of results. You concluded that homes in Europe had better
shortest distances to IETF meetings (assuming that thoes homes have
full
Continue Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:02/06/2013
Reviewed I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03
Reviewer Comment A2: Referencing the NHDP and related to RFC6130
++
I think if we got
*. Therefore recommend a Wider
Geographic Participation Diversified and not discriminated.
Please note that the above is my opinion and believe, but if the
comments are wrong, feel free to comment on them.
Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
- I worked on four new I-Ds so far
Hi Spencer.
I like your point. I think it is correct that collaboration is needed
between all regions for many I-Ds or related I-Ds to the region
participants interest. Cross-participation co-authoring between
regions may make better results than co-authors from same region.
Comments below,
On
On 5/30/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
difficult problems arise when someone comes to us with a spec
that might be ok but isn't how we would do it and tries to say
you can have this and we will turn over change control as long
as you don't really want to make any changes. When a
On 5/30/13, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
At risk of alienating my comrades from locations seeking to attract an IETF
for local development/inclusiveness and the like reasons, I think John gets
to the nub of the matter: the wider community cost, borne by all attendees
as a 'silent
Hello,
Thanks alot, we need people like you that tell others about IETF and
its real culture, or what they can do by using IETF. If
people/community can know what they can do, they will participate. Are
the IETF management contacting Internet Societies in South America
about participation, and
Hi SM
my answer to your reply,
On 5/27/13, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 16:38 26-05-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I think they SHOULD have, and all of us should do the same, because
IETF will expand and become stronger by increasing participants from
ALL Internet community
On 5/29/13, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
I wasn't unable to attend an IETF meeting some
time ago due to an administrative issue. The
proposal I intended to discuss about (it was
discussed during a session) was not
adopted. With hindsight I'll say that the
proposal would not have
on
the figures/statistics. If you disagree or have any comment please
reply/advise. Thanking you,
AB
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Hi,
On May 28, 2013, at 19:46, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
by looking into the statistics of I
On 5/29/13, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
by looking into the statistics of I-Ds and RFCs, it is strange that we
get
sometimes high rate in the I-D going in IETF from some regions but the
success rate of I-Ds to become RFCs is very low (5- 50).
There seems to be a general pattern
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 creating first is *individual-draft* not
:46 PM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 15:31, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Each IETF document mentions the authors
Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
statistics of how many IETF-documents produced by authors in South
America, Africa, or Asia, or others.
I think it is a good marketing start for IETF to get
Hi John,
I agree and I will add, that What makes that participant continue to
volunteer, or even witness/read the ietf work process? Making someone
interested to do something freely is not an easy task. The difficulty
is how to make that individual participate with value, he/she may need
help to
On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
statistics of how many IETF
Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:27/05/2013
Reviewer Comment A1: Previous comments in WGLC
+++
Related to your request below please read my previous review comments
[1] and I will continue
-archive/web/manet/current/msg15274.html
I didn't see the support of your comments from other WG participants.
best
Jiazi
2013/5/27 Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:27/05/2013
Reviewer
On 5/27/13, Jiazi YI yi.ji...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I think those comments have been addressed/answered in my previous reply
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15274.html
I didn't see the support of your comments from other WG participants.
I also didn't see objection
I support to add the new region, hoping in future Africa gets its
chance. IMO, I thought about it from another point of view. After a
long time of having IETF meetings mostly in one region (as history of
North America region gaining most meetings), the result of that was
that IETF participants are
Hi SM,
There are some from Africa trying to find the way in, but they may not
mention it, however, training is not important much to make people
participate but the type of training and its period inside
organisation not outside. For example, I notice that there was one
African participant (not
I support the ietf-meeting in new regions, and reply as below,
On 5/26/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The IAOC has put forward two reasons for having an IETF meeting in South
America:
Encouraging growing participation will help strengthen the Internet,
further encourage
I don't think there is any general solution to the early vs.
complete tradeoff [1],
IMHO, that general answer is; having good organisation or management
from all parts participants, discussion chairs and from directors.
nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
with things as collections of
Hi
Just small comment on the AD review, and to show my expectation. I
hope to know your expectations of reviews. If we know the expectations
of the community we will progress better.
I expect that the AD review overviews all I-D pieces and also all the
WG participants input within the WGLC.
Connecting ideas related to the same I-D is not an easy task, usually
reviewers just do their own review without reading others. I try to
read all reviews (if time is available) or input related to I-D to
connect ideas to help in better my review results or quality.
I recommend that such
The problem is that WG participants SHOULD follow/update their
milestones and take responsibility to progress work to thoes goals
direction. The Chair SHOULD follow the WG requests, or the Chair
SHOULD encourage discussing the milestones. I already requested before
that all WGs SHOULD discuss
Instead of a WG progress report, what I had in mind was a separate report for
each work item. The report should briefly describe
I agree with you totally, that work-item-report SHOULD be copied to AD
and WG. That report is needed mostly when the work does not target its
milestone, requesting
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel adrian at olddog.co.uk wrote:
The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that
are
intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have
been
raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is
1 - 100 of 281 matches
Mail list logo
