intent goes away.
James
Cheers,
Gonzalo
On 04/09/2013 10:41 PM, James Polk wrote: All
I've been out on leave since just after Berlin (which I had to cancel at
the last minute, so I wasn't able to attend in realtime, or present the
INSIPID reqs and solutions drafts - which I normally do
All
I've been out on leave since just after Berlin (which I had to cancel
at the last minute, so I wasn't able to attend in realtime, or
present the INSIPID reqs and solutions drafts - which I normally do
at each IETF). Somewhere along the way, it was decided that
At 12:38 PM 8/5/2013, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
I seem to have missed a lot of traffic since getting a few
responses yesterday. I think the reasons why slides should be
available well in advance of the meeting have been covered well
by others. And, as others have suggested, I'm willing to see
At 11:58 AM 5/28/2013, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jari Arkko
mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.netjari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
James:
did you know that you have a audio/video realtime interactive
communications WG churning out proposals and solutions that is
*actively*
At 05:25 PM 5/23/2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
For what it is worth, I wanted to provide my perspective on this. I
of course believe that it is important that the IETF reaches out to
an even more international participation than it already has. This
is first of all because we really need the views
, James Polk wrote:
Eyeballing the IETF (and I've missed 2 meetings since IETF45, been
a WG chair for 8 years, and written or revised over 300 submitted
IDs) there is consistently about a 70-to-1 ratio of men to women.
Your eyeballing had you put the ratio at about 70:1. I wouldn't be
surprised
what you are suggesting is quotas and forced participation from a
volunteer organization... are you serious?
At 11:51 PM 4/16/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
My own feeling is that if we were to find that the
numbers supported the notion that there's bias
present in the system we probably
At 02:11 PM 4/12/2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
And I don't know if you intended to or not, but what you
communicated is The best candidates are nearly always
western white guys, since that's who's being selected.
That's a problematic suggestion.
I respect you, Melinda. I think you are smarter and
At 03:59 PM 4/5/2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
Actually, getting rich without implementing anything seems to happen
quite often enough these days - it's called acquisition.
or be a Kardashian
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
mailto:wbee...@cisco.comwbee...@cisco.com wrote:
At 01:01 PM 2/26/2013, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
have talked to the Secretariat
The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or more
the deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from now.
What gives?
James
At 11:05 AM 2/25/2013, IETF Secretariat wrote:
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) cut-off is
At 06:50 PM 2/25/2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/25/13 5:47 PM, James Polk wrote:
The ID upload tool says the deadline has passed, yet a decade or
more the deadline has been 8pm ET/5pm PT. That's 15 minutes from
now.
I had the same problem
Hey Randy
SDP, defined in the MMUSIC WG (why isn't this
being discussed on that list? because it'll have
to go to that list before this draft progresses
anyway), isn't a negotiation protocol, it's an
offer/answer exchange (per RFC3264) - and even if
you didn't want SIP, there's not a
At 01:43 PM 11/1/2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case
pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note).
My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting
an opinion about
IETF 106 seems a bit late in November. Are we boxed in by other SDO
meetings, or is this by our own choice?
James
At 02:15 PM 9/6/2012, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
All;
Below are suggested Meeting dates for 2018 - 2022, IETF's 101 - 115.
The IAOC is soliciting the community's
Having missed only 2 meetings in 13 years, I can say that no venue
was perfect, but some were very good. It becomes a case of which
venues have the fewest bad things. I believe this venue was
exceptional at many things, very good at nearly all others, with the
bad things being food/snacks
At 12:05 PM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is pointless,
as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding
that it's clarifying.
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in
At 07:28 AM 7/23/2012, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
Let's forget the religious discussion that seems to have broken out
as a result of this.
While Easter may be a major Christian festival, I don't believe the
issue is such (I can think of no reasons why Christians would have a
doctrinal
At 12:58 PM 7/20/2012, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
For convenience, the complete list:
http://www.interfaithcalendar.org/2016.htm
outstanding - now we can't meet that whole year... ;-)
On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
As long as you don't go any later than the week of
At 12:29 PM 7/20/2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change
for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled
At 01:46 AM 6/15/2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Well, I've started working on
21 matches
Mail list logo
