Sam, et al,
I doubt that noting an appeal has been determined to have merit
is especially useful. As Sam implies below, it is possible to have
controversy over this point, and any controversy is likely to mean no
annotation of merit will occur in many cases.
Ignoring for the
This reply was inadvertently blind copied to the ietf mailing list.
I meant to have it plain copied, but dropped it a line to low...
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Gray, Eric
-- Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:04 PM
-- To: 'Olaf M. Kolkman'
-- Subject: RE: draft-kolkman
I completely agree with Noel on every detail of these comments.
And, no, I was not one of the complainers either. :-)
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:26 AM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org
-- Cc: [EMAIL
It makes sense now, but will it make sense in 10 years?
With today's DVD technology, is it completely unlikely
that ISO CD formats may not be supported by then? Is it
not possible that CDs will go the way of 8-track tapes,
beta-max, and 3.25 floppy and 100 Mega-byte Zip drives?
I can store
Eliot/Brian,
This, I think, is part of the problem.
To say that it is well understood that the Internet mainly
runs on Proposed Standards, is to indulge in over-simplification.
And to say we are not actually following our documented process
- is to focus on the meta-issues when
Harald,
The below is an easy mis-construction to make - from discussion
within the IETF, involving security experts.
What I believe I've actually seen is along the lines of we don't
want your favorite security/authentication because it is likely to be
mis-represented as having
Sam,
I thought the Security Area Directorate was limited to
determining if the description of security risks is adequate
and that determination of whether security is adequate - for
adequately described security risks - would be up to the end
consumer.
Is that not correct?
Yaakov,
It might be me, but it seems (to me) that - if you think through
what you've said - it is not consistent. Maybe it's simply an issue of
relative time scales.
Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate
it - argues very forcibly that no such gap can
Harald,
Especially this simile.
The way I read this draft, it suggests that the IETF in general
has found the choice between fixed length suspensions and indefinite
suspension altogether too restraining. The explicit wording of the 2
paragraphs of substantive text is that the
List of attendees? Surely that is actually independent of the minutes...
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:14 AM
-- To: David Harrington
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs
--
-- Just a
Ray,
May I make a suggestion for the next time around?
How about if the registration page asks if you want
to be subscribed to this list?
As I understood it, this experiment was performed at
the request of people on the ietf discussion mailing list.
That list is _not_
Are you sure about this?
There are a significant number of people in this forum who are
so convinced of the infallibility of their own logic that to be
in the not agreeing set - from their perspective - MUST be the
inevitable result of being also in the not listening set...
:-)
--
Eric
--
Tom,
This would be a bad idea as a general rule - though it is
(I believe) one of the things that ADs look at.
The problem is that there are good examples of WGs where
the chair was a key author as well and it worked just fine. In
addition, there are also examples where a chair
Ned,
What would be useful - in even more than this context -
would be if there was a peer-level directory where source for
all RFCs would be kept adjacent to the RFCs derived from them.
In addition to giving us some concrete evidence of how
many RFCs use each source format, it
Thomas,
This is a different discussion, however, you are
right on target with that discussion - at least for IDs
in general. Wouldn't this be subject to a DoS attack,
if applied to individual ID submissions?
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL
Brian,
I had responded to Eric Rosen's note earlier (see my mail
of Thu 6/1/2006 12:07 PM EDT) - in particular concluding:
I - for one - see nothing either false or misleading in the
proposed note. I also find that addition of such a note is
substantially less onerous than
Spencer,
This opens up yet another can of worms. Suppose that
everybody who makes a comment on a draft (substantive, or
otherwise) has to be listed and every one listed is bound by
BCPs relating to IPR, copyright, etc. in RFC content.
What happens if someone - perhaps having
in acknowledgements. I am merely pointing out that
it is also possible that someone might not want this.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:53 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric; Spencer Dawkins
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
John,
Agree.
-- -Original Message-
-- From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:04 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: RE: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last
-- Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft
Steven,
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that a problem that is
highly complex should not be solved (or, at least, that we should
consider not solving it). That seems like a cop-out. Minimally,
every problem we've ever faced, we've tried to solve (where we
refers to us weak-kneed
John,
In your choices below, choice i and ii are not quite
separable. In the do nothing mode i, eventual advancement
required to de-queue the would-be Draft Standard will only
happen if choice ii is in effect. In other words, choice ii
is effectively the same as choice i except that the
Eric (Rosen),
Irrespective of opinions about the nature of the current
process, if one RFC is advanced significantly ahead of another
one that it has a normative dependency on, it is possible that
the state of the art will migrate between one advancement, and
the other.
In the
Joel,
Please see my comments below...
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 4:11 PM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: LC on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt
--
-- Reading this, a few items caught my
Bob,
Weirdness?
No part of the RFC Editor's job has ever involved
deliberate modification of text that reflects a carefully
crafted compromise position. In the past, when any such
modification has occurred inadvertently, it would usually
have been reversed during an Auth48.
Bob,
To me, this is a perfectly sensible discussion, and my
analogy was perfectly reasonable.
Joel suggested that refraining from making changes that
might result in altering phraseology that was carefully arrived
at was effectively prohibiting the technical editor from doing
the
Lucy,
Thanks!
--
E
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Lucy E. Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:31 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; Sam Hartman; Bernard Aboba; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: RE: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually
Sam,
Thanks!
--
E
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 5:20 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; Bernard Aboba; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful
Eliot,
I am not sure where the disagreement between what you're
saying and what Sam said earlier is - unless you're saying that
it is not necessary for the IETF to have an over-ride ability
on specific issues.
It would be nice if the IETF had a direct appeal to the
community
Sam, et al,
There are so many things tied up in this, that I am
afraid it is bound to turn into a rat-hole.
For one thing, I thought Russ was talking about the
complication that arise from whether or not the BCP 78/79
stuff applies to people who made some contribution but are
not
Henning,
IRT BCP 78/79 IPR statements, it's actually worse than
you indicate.
The issue is that (because of the Note Well) you can't
effectively take back a contribution and (because of the need
for proper attribution) you really cannot de-list someone who
has made any
Noel,
I think the street address analogy is not close
enough - anymore than longitude and latitude numbers or
any other description of physical location.
The problem with physical location portability is
that the location remains even if you're not in it. So
someone else might
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:17 PM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org
-- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Subject: RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.
--
-- From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-- I think the street address analogy is not close
Dave,
Certainly there are organizations that do this. Those
organizations are significantly different from the IETF. For
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and
Sounds to me like this comes under the Transport Area - at least
as far as flooding control is concerned. Avoidance of flooded
paths, on the other hand, might be a routing Area problem.
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, March
Ted,
It does not make sense to propose a change to a referenced
document in order to help explain the need for the referencing
document.
In addition, an indefinite period of time is - by itself -
a more than sufficient difference.
Usually, a suspension of any privilege
Marshall,
Actually - assuming it has any effect at all - it would
be worse than that.
Not only will value adding posters be discouraged, but
they will most likely handle the input process using another
means (hallway conversations, off-line exchanges, etc.). This
has the effect
Brian,
Thanks for the clarification!
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:57 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: 'Sam Hartman'; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting
Tom,
I'm sorry to disagree, but I feel that the term monotonic has
a much better defined meaning than most terms in general (including -
for example - the term term).
There are definitely applications for the phrase monotonically
increasing where the terminology is exactly
Sam,
I re-inserted JFC's original text below.
Just to be clear, it looks as if JFC has some misunderstanding
of IETF mailing lists, or - perhaps - knows of IETF mailing lists I
am not aware of. Also, most of the formality he points out is both
reasonable, and not in disagreement
Russ, et al,
There is a precedent that may need to be established here that
is not relevant to the TLS Working Group (therefore their omission in
the CC list above).
The text to that Bill refers to actually says the following:
These notices may not be used with any
JFC,
This appears to be an appeal in response to an action
that - as far as I can tell - has not yet occurred. Scott's
posting of the intent to consider does not appear to be any
thing to which an appeal is appropriate, the dead-line for
submission of comments was last Friday and - again
Tom/Yaakov,
Getting back to the slightly related field of specification
of standard protocols, the term monotonically increasing is used
in many cases because that is all that really needs to be said.
This is because the intent in the specification is to allow
implementations to
Steven,
There's a certain (very much non-zero) cost associated with
announcing _anything_ very widely. Generally it means the person
making the announcement has to subscribe to the list (and hope the
list manager does not filter the announcement anyway) - in part so
that it will
Yaakov,
While I support the general idea behind the experiment
advocated in this draft, in fairness, your statement below is
just your version of what John said.
To see how complex a set of equations might be easily
shown in text, see http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html.
Bernard,
The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that
replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a
single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new
documents with the intent to just glue the current set back
together.
Is that a correct
David,
As I understand it, it would be a man-in-the-middle
attack if you sat at a table and ordered a Burrito from a
person you thought was a waiter. That person then goes to
the counter, orders two burritos and a large coffee, to go.
They then deliver one Burrito to you, along with the
Anthony,
...
--
-- Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long
-- stream of consistently productive messages.
--
--
This is simply not true. All one needs to do is publish a
crucial document relevant to the working groups charter,
and important to understanding the
Anthony,
I actually feel that meeting summaries and - occasionally
surveys - can be a critical constructive part of the process.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Anthony G. Atkielski
-- Sent: Tuesday, January 24,
Noel,
I think you may have bitten into a bear-trap. :-)
First, the site you cite speculates that someone is
the author of this note. That may be the case, but there
is no evidence - contained at that site - to support that
speculative assertion. It certainly is possible,
Brian,
This seems to me to be somewhere on the continuum from no
brainer to rocket science - with a high likelihood of not being
too near the rocket science end.
It would be good to caution the IETF Secretariat and meeting
sponsors to consider the potential for difficulty in
Eliot,
Plenty of time to ask why, once it becomes clear what the
prevalent opinion is.
I personally find the question a bit on the obnoxious side
prior to that. When seeking consensus, it is usually necessary
only to determine what the issues are in the minority opinion,
and
Ned,
It is certainly fair to say that implementors do participate
in mailing list discussions, and that their participation is very
valuable. However, many times the number of participants that are
active (read - vocal) are those that lurk and it is my opinion
- supported by observation
enough private questions,
perhaps they will - as in this case - choose to give a public
answer.
Or perhaps not.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:23 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Scott
Marshall,
RFCs are living documents as well, though the process for
change is somewhat cumbersome. There are examples of RFCs that
have been updated many times in the last few years.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On
In my opinion, this action is not appropriate in this case.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Scott Hollenbeck
-- Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:35 AM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org; ietf-announce@ietf.org
-- Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Sam,
Clearly we should be thinking about some way to charge
participants for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process
in general. There is some minimal processing time associated
with any appeal for everyone who has anything to do with it.
I don't think posting rights is
If we can make positive comments, I think this is a really
useful document to have...
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The IESG
-- Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:39 PM
-- To: IETF-Announce
-- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
to 'call' for consensus
until there are no more than three choices - and usually it will be
when there are no more than two.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:43 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: 'Sam Hartman
PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:40 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Normative figures
--
--
-- We write specifications so that they are easier to read, validate
-- and understand, not so that they are easier to write.
--
--
--
--
-- Eric
--
-- We write
consideration.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:01 AM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Normative figures
--
--
-- Yes. And, if we're talking about wanting to make the figures
Eric,
--- [SNIP ---
-- IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on
-- an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the
-- idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with
-- little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing
-- what's been
Sam/Sandy,
See below...
--
Eric
--- [SNIP] ---
-- Sandy Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma
-- Sandy among the long-time IETF participants that they never take
-- Sandy votes. All they do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and
-- Sandy that reduces
Stewart,
There's a joke that goes something like this: there are three
kinds of people in this world - those that are good at Math and those
that are not.
Funny thing is that there are at least three ways in which
people approach mathematical expressions:
1) Some see a nice,
Stewart,
You realize that the text example you gave is meaningless -
without making some (potentially non-obvious) assumptions, right?
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
-- Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006
Stewart,
See below...
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:50 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Normative figures
--
-- Eric
--
-- You are missing the point.
--
Out
--
-- I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following
-- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's
-- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this
-- CfC if you object.
--
I object.
Spencer,
--
-- It shouldn't be a vote (we don't vote - I know you know this, because
you
-- put vote in quotes), but if we had some way to let people say you
know,
-- I just don't care, that would help, too.
--
I agree, and it could also be very useful should we ever start
to realize that it
suspect that - now that you know the reasons - you might
agree that this was one of those times...
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Randy.Dunlap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:21 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: 'Sandy Wills'; Ken Raeburn; IETF General
Sam,
It is useful sometimes to differentiate those who have
no stake in a particular issue from those who are not paying
attention. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) it is not a
very important distinction, and the IETF treats it this way
all of the time. Maybe that's the right way to
Bob,
State Diagrams is a bad example. State machines can, and
should always be, described definitively in text. State machine
diagrams must be derived from textual description. Consequently,
if we want to create a document with a pictorial representation,
that document could contain
r purpose. Or, we
could assume the
reverse...
The
current process requires weighing of voices, not
weighing
of the supposed opinions of
the silent.
--
Eric
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:25 PMTo: Gray,
Eric; Brian E CarpenterCc: ietf@iet
Brian,
I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have
not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into
trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to
which of the steps we are currently working on.
Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second
step
Jerry,
And this is a déjà vu over and over again as well.
We could - in theory - allow draft versions in any
format an author chooses. It would make quite a mess of
the draft repository and - eventually - the RFC library.
But we need to agree on one or more versions
John,
I believe - for the record - that Post-Script is also
allowed.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of John C Klensin
-- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 11:28 AM
-- To: Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\); Yaakov Stein;
Stewart,
You bring up a good point. I have been assuming that - since
IDs can be submitted in multiple formats - that the additional
formats would also become part of the RFC library on publication.
I just took a quick peek at the RFCs and there does not appear
to be a single
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: 'Yaakov Stein'; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
--
-- Gray, Eric wrote:
--
-- It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal
-- people who are
-- opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants
-- on the IETF
:22 PM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: Gray, Eric; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re:
Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Eliot Lear wrote:
I agree. As usual we seem
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:19 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag
-- [Re: Consensus b ased
: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:34 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
--
-- Gray, Eric wrote:
--
-- Sandy,
--
--In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change
-- is not the default outcome in most human organizations
Brian,
Yours is sort of a general reply to a question which has
very specific relevance in this case.
Yes, the current process allows for getting around a few
nay-sayers.
However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a
Ted,
If that happens, don't you think that we would be
obliged to object to their claims?
IMO, such claims would be easily defeated on the
same basis as most look feel claims have been beaten
in the past. In fact, I am not aware of issues with any
sort of rights assertion
means
that I can get a copy without signing another mortgage.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:15 AM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: RE: Alternative formats for IDs
-- Lets go ahead and ask then -
-- Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which
-- format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to
-- distribute IETF specifications?
Clarifying that publicly known means well defined and publicly
available, I would
You'll need to work very hard to get the WG action items
completed by April 1, 2006.
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Peter Dambier
-- Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 5:32 AM
-- To: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org;
Simon,
As I understand it, the IETF has negotiated for nominal
control of IPR vested in other organizations that was developed
through IETF activities. Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose
of the trust.
However, if that is the situation, two things are easily
apparent: 1) the
See below...
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Gray, Eric
-- Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:04 AM
-- To: 'Nelson, David'
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: RE: Examples of translated RFCs
--
-- David,
--
-- Never-the-less, it can happen. Normative references -
-- at least by some
David,
Never-the-less, it can happen. Normative references -
at least by some definitions of the term - can be to types
of documents than RFCs.
However, it is usually the case that papers and other
documents written in French, Russian, German, etc. are made
available in - or
Ted,
--
-- The IETF does not make any effort to be representative of the Internet
-- community.
--
-- 1) They do too.
--
-- Hmmm. I would have thought proof by assertion would be more fun.
--
-- Seriously, you can argue that the IETF is failing to reach the
-- stakeholders it claims to
Robert,
See below...
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Robert Sayre
-- Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:38 PM
-- To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
-- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Moore; Tim Bray; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re:
Phillip,
Two things:
1) Robert was speculating as to the reason why
people use chapter and verse rather than pages
in their references, and
2) He said informal communication.
There is something a bit informal about referring to
-- To: Joel M. Halpern; Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?
--
-- The reason we have the deadline is to protect the Secretariat from
-- having to be heroes. However, best would be if the need for such
-- protection didn't arise.
--
-- Instead
AM
-- To: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?
--
-- On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 10:07:27AM -0500, Gray, Eric allegedly wrote:
--Making your - admittedly optimistic - assumption and following
-- it to a conclusion leads me to suspect that many
-- (possibly most
Dave,
One of your comments seems to apply to the effectiveness
of having an early submission deadline. What is the point of
monkeying around with early submission deadlines when they are
not very effective anyway?
There seems to be two elements to your argument: that the
rule
-
-- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:23 PM
-- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Cc: Gray, Eric; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?
--
-- It would seem to me that this could be pushed to a degree onto
that have to be made and
2) making exceptions erodes the credibility of the entire process.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:11 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: EARLY submission
-
-- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:30 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?
--
--
--
--1) Allow the Secretariat time to post all on-time submissions;
--
-- As I recall
Dave,
I think we're close to agreement here, however there are
(at least) two levels/kinds of enforcement involved in what we
are talking about. One - the enforcement of policy regarding
posting to the Internet Draft depository - has to be done by the
Secretariat. The other -
Dave,
It looks - to me - as if Bob's post is in response to
Bob's own earlier post. That should make it difficult to
construe his more recent post as an attack.
At worst, it's a quick response indirectly aimed at
another quick response.
One issue with to quickly
Joel,
I agree with your observation completely. One
essential problem with allowing WGs to independently
determine their own deadlines is that this tries to
assert that impact on people's scheduling needs in a
WG is independent of similar needs for other working
groups. Because all of
Russ,
Sorry, but what kind of options? Looking at my key
board, I can't tell whether you meant to type available
or avoidable...
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Russ Housley
-- Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
