--On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
...
That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the
contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the
difference between some individuals issuing a statement in
their capacity
--On Thursday, October 03, 2013 16:51 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
ves...@tana.it wrote:
ADSP was basically an experiment that failed. It has no
significant deployment, and the problem it was supposed to
solve is now being addressed in other ways.
I oppose to the change as proposed, and
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 07:41 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant
to make the following status changes:
- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
The supporting document for this request can be found
I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but...
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended.
As in, duh...
Duh notwithstanding, we move documents to Historic for many
reasons.
--On Sunday, 29 September, 2013 09:19 +0100 Adrian Farrel
adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi John,
Thanks for the additions.
Everything you say seems fine to me for the cases you are
focusing on, but I hope that any changes to 4020bis keep two
things in mind lest we find ourselves tangled
--On Saturday, 28 September, 2013 23:44 +0100 Adrian Farrel
adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
I am working with Michelle on responses and updates after IETF
last call. Most of the issues give rise to relatively easy
changes, and Michelle can handle them in a new revision with a
note saying
--On Sunday, 22 September, 2013 07:02 -0400 Noel Chiappa
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
...
Yes. $$$. Nobody makes much/any money off email because it is
so de-centralized. People who build wonderful new applications
build them in a centralized way so that they can control them.
And they
--On Sunday, 22 September, 2013 17:37 + Christian Huitema
huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
...
It is very true that innovation can only be sustained with a
revenue stream. But we could argue that several services have
now become pretty much standardized, with very little
additional
--On Sunday, 22 September, 2013 12:59 -0400 Paul Wouters
p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
Except that essentially all services other than email have
gained popularity in centralized form, including IM.
Note that decentralising makes you less anonymous. If everyone
runs
their own jabber
--On Friday, September 20, 2013 10:15 -0400 Ted Lemon
ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 20, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
From the stack I'm currently working on, I find the ICE spec
to be convoluted, but the SDP spec is worse, becaue it's
spread across
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:59 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
However, because the document will be read externally, I
prefer that it be IETF in all of the places you identify.
If we have to hold our noses and claim that the community
authorized the IESG actions by
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:30 +0100 Andy Mabbett
a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 18 September 2013 14:04, Tony Hansen t...@att.com wrote:
I just re-read your original message to ietf@ietf.org. What I
had originally taken as a complaint about getting a way to
have a unique id
--On Thursday, September 19, 2013 07:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote:
...
It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY
for the authors of a draft, and the IETF reminder system
seems to be focused solely on
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 17:22 -0400 Alan Clark
alan.d.cl...@telchemy.com wrote:
John, Brian
Most standards organizations require that participants who
have, or whose company has, IPR relevant to a potential
standard, disclose this at an early stage and at least prior
to
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:47 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Based on the conversation below I converged to:
t
While less mature specifications will usually be
published as Informational or Experimental RFCs, the
IETF may, in exceptional
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:32 +0100 Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.net wrote:
I read John's message as being against the use of the phrase
in exceptional cases. I would also like to avoid that; it
suggests that some exceptional argument may have to be made,
and has the implication
Hi. I agree completely with Joel, but let me add a bit more
detail and a possible alternative...
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 08:56 -0400 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools
to include provision for using ORCHIDs, that is a
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 22:28 -0400 John R Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I do have an identical twin brother, and hashing the DNA
sequence collides more regularly than either random or
MAC-based interface-identifiers in IPv6.
Also, he doesn't have the same opinions.
Clearly,
--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 -0400 Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate
of orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
I agree with what Joel wrote:
Pete,
I generally agree with your changes and consider them important
-- the IESG should be seen in our procedural documents as
evaluating and reflecting the consensus of the IETF, not acting
independently of it.
Of the various places in the document in which IESG now
appears, only one of them
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 18:34 +0100 Andy Mabbett
a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the
document and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is
it contact info?
While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 07:14 -1000 Randy Bush
ra...@psg.com wrote:
can we try to keep life simple? it is prudent to check what
(new) ipr exists for a draft at the point where the iesg is
gonna start the sausage machine to get it to rfc. if the iesg
did not do this, we would
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 15:58 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
[Barry added explicitly to the CC as this speaks to 'his'
issue]
On 13 sep. 2013, at 20:57, John C Klensin klen...@jck.com
wrote:
[… skip …]
* Added the Further Consideration section based
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 10:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
I agree that we're normally requiring much more of PS
documents than we used to, and that it's good that we document
that and let external organizations know. At the same time,
we are sometimes
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 19:35 +0700 Glen Zorn
g...@net-zen.net wrote:
...
The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we
are required to answer the following question which is part
of the Shepherd write-up as per the instructions from the
IESG
--On Friday, September 13, 2013 16:56 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
...
Based on the discussion so far I've made a few modifications
to the draft. I am trying to consciously keep this document
to the minimum that is needed to achieve 'less is more' and
my feeling is that
--On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 08:09 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
True story: Last Saturday evening I was sitting waiting for a
piano recital to start, when I overheard the person sitting
behind me (who I happen to know is a retired chemistry
professor)
--On Friday, September 06, 2013 19:50 -0800 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/13 7:45 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
They have different problems, but are inherently less
reliable than web of trust GPG signing. It doesn't scale
well, but when done in a defined context for
--On Friday, September 06, 2013 17:11 +0100 Tony Finch
d...@dotat.at wrote:
John C Klensin j...@jck.com wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that
DANE-like approaches are significantly better than traditional
PKI ones only to the extent to which:
...
Yes
--On Friday, September 06, 2013 06:20 -0700 Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Actually, I disagree that this fallacy is at play here. I
think we need to separate the concept of end-to-end encryption
from authentication when it comes to UI transparency. We
design UIs now where we
--On Friday, September 06, 2013 08:41 -0700 Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
...
Absolutely. There is clearly a good motivation: A particular
UI choice should not *constrain* a protocol, so it is
essential that we make sure that the protocol is not
*dependent* on the UI. But
--On Friday, September 06, 2013 07:38 -0700 Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Actually, I think the latter is really what I'm suggesting.
We've got do the encryption (for both the minimal protection
from passive attacks as well as setting things up for doing
good security
--On Friday, September 06, 2013 10:43 -0400 Joe Abley
jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
Can someone please tell me that BIND isn't being this stupid?
This thread has mainly been about privacy and confidentiality.
There is nothing in DNSSEC that offers either of those,
directly (although it's an
--On Thursday, September 05, 2013 15:20 -0700 Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
IESG minutes as the publication of record
The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they
do state the pending actions too, as well as the completed
ones, which the IETF Announce
--On Monday, 02 September, 2013 14:09 -0400 Scott O Bradner
s...@sobco.com wrote:
There is at least one ongoing effort right now that has the
potential to reclassify a large set of Proposed Standard RFCs
that form the basis of widely used technology. These types of
efforts can have a
--On Saturday, August 31, 2013 23:50 +0900 Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
The draft does not assure that existing usages are compatible
with each other.
It absolutely does not. I actually expect it to help identify
some usages that are at least confusing and possible
--On Saturday, August 31, 2013 02:52 -0700 manning bill
bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field,
I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to
registration in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low.
That is indeed the intent. If
Uses of Data
with the DNS TXT RRTYPE Author(s) : John C Klensin
Andrew Sullivan
Patrik Faltstrom
Filename: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt
Pages : 8
Date: 2013-08-30
--On Friday, August 30, 2013 11:48 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that draft was superseded by RFC6335 and all
service names (SRV prefix labels) are now recorded at
http://www.iana.org/**
assignments/service-names-**port-numbers/service-names-**
Hi. I'm going to comment very sparsely on responses to this
draft, especially those that slide off into issues that seem
basically irrelevant to the registry and the motivation for its
creation. My primary reason is that I don't want to burden the
IETF list with a back-and-forth exchange,
--On Friday, August 30, 2013 09:56 -0700 Bob Braden
bra...@isi.edu wrote:
CR LF was first adopted for the Telnet NVT (Network Virtual
Terminal). I think it was Jon
Postel's choice, and no one disagreed.
A tad more complicated, IIR. It turns out that, with some
systems interpreting LF as
--On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 07:21 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records:
RFC 5507 is irrelevant to consideration of the SPFbis draft.
Really.
RFC 5507 concerns approaches to design. However the SPFbis
draft is not
--On Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
In Section 2:
'a. The code points must be from a space designated as
Specification Required (where an RFC will be used as the
stable reference), RFC Required, IETF Review, or
--On Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:28 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/29/2013 9:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I may be violating my promise to myself to stay out of
SPF-specific issues,
Probably not, since your note has little to do with the
realities of the SPFbis draft
--On Monday, August 26, 2013 10:49 -0400 John R Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Sorry if that last one came across as dismissive.
Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit
notion that the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not
be seen as a precedent and best
--On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 14:01 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is a call for review of List of Internet Official
Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior
to potential
--On Sunday, August 18, 2013 17:04 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
I'd love to get more developers in general to participate -
whether they're open or closed source doesn't matter. But I
don't know how to do that, beyond what we do now. The email
lists are free and open. The
--On Monday, August 19, 2013 12:49 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
...
First, I note that, in some organizations (including some
large ones), someone might be working on an open source
project one month and a proprietary one the next, or maybe
both
concurrently. Would it be appropriate
--On Sunday, 18 August, 2013 08:33 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan
hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
...
And it does cost the IETF lots of money to host the physical
meetings, and that cost is directly proportional to the number
of physical attendees. More attendees = more cost.
I had promised myself
--On Friday, August 16, 2013 04:59 -0400 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
Maybe I am missing something.
The reason we have face-to-face meetings is because there is
value in such meetings that can not reasonably be achieved in
other ways.
I would like remote participation to be
--On Friday, August 16, 2013 13:07 -0300 Carlos M. Martinez
carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
...
And, before the IETF would commit to take steps in that
direction, it would be interesting to see some numbers about
how much money needs to be invested in deploying and operating
remote
--On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:06 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is a call for review of List of Internet Official
Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to
potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.
The document is
--On Friday, August 16, 2013 15:46 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan
hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, John C Klensin
john-i...@jck.com wrote:
(1) As Dave points out, this activity has never been free.
The question is only about who pays. If any participants
have to pay
--On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 06:24 -0400 John Leslie
j...@jlc.net wrote:
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Douglas Otis
doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote
participants who receive credit for their
--On Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:14 -0400 Ted Lemon
ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
wrote:
Most of this thread has ignored the IETF's own rules and
criteria. As such, it's wasteful, at best, though I think
it's actually
--On Thursday, August 08, 2013 23:20 + John Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
That sounds right. Someone might want to add commentary (even
in English) to the Tao, such as to discuss local
participants, diversity, and so on.
Someone might, or they might rewrite it to say that IETF
:
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
--On Wednesday, August 07, 2013 00:52 +0200 Martin Rex
m...@sap.com wrote:
...
IETF 39 was in Munich (August 1997) ArabellaSheraton @
Arabella Park, and it was HOT pretty much the whole week.
If I recall, another very successful meeting in a place we
should go back to.
Now, if only the
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:31 + Ted Lemon
ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
If you came to the IETF and were working for company X,
registered pseudonymously, and didn't disclose IPR belonging
to you or company X, and then later company X sued someone for
using their IPR, you and
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
updates to those slides if things change in
--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 02:06 +0100 Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
On 08/05/2013 06:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
The reasons to discourage anonymity aren't just patent
nonsense (although that should be sufficient and I rather
like the pun).
Thanks. The pun
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 07:27 -0400 Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
...
* On several occasions this week, slides were uploaded
on a just-in-time basis (or an hour or so after that).
Agreed. I'd like to have this as a very clear IETF-wide
policy. No slides 1
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:53 + John Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks
it's fine.
I do not want to be recorded as thinking it is
--On Friday, August 02, 2013 06:47 -0700 Randall Gellens
rg+i...@qualcomm.com wrote:
I can rattle off a very small number of hotels around the
world where they do wash in-room items in the restaurant
dishwasher.
Or equivalent. Most of those seal the washed cups in paper or
plastic to show
--On Saturday, August 03, 2013 08:55 +0200 Olle E. Johansson
o...@edvina.net wrote:
...
Just a note for the future. I think we should allow
anonymous listeners, but should they really be allowed to
participate?
We don't allow anonymous comments at the microphone in
face-to-face meetings,
FWIW, I share Brian's concern and reasoning about these
questions (and his allergy). I might have a lower threshold of
necessity as a requirement for changing the agreement, but I'm
not convinced -- from either the slide or what I could hear of
the audio-- that it is necessary.
john
--On
--On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 16:41 +0200 IETF Chair
ch...@ietf.org wrote:
Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many
PS-IS transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published
in October 2011. That RFC changed the three-step standards
process to two steps. There was also
--On Monday, July 29, 2013 01:37 -0400 Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
...
One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is
send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting. Those
summaries generally give folks a good idea of the current
state of each WG.
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 03:25 -0700 Alexa Morris
amor...@amsl.com wrote:
(3) While it is almost certainly too late to populate it
before Berlin, I think the meeting page template could use a
Remote Participants main section with pointers to hints and
other relevant materials, including
Hi.
For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the
most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday
afternoon tutorials and introductions. Many of them are (or
should be) of as much interest to remote participants as to f2f
attendees. Until and unless a newcomer's
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current
Practices?
On a similar note, according
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 08:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
And there is a Training section in the meeting materials
page. It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it
there. All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it.
And to remember that
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
...
On a similar note, according to its agenda, the core of the
DNS-SD Extensions BOF (dnssdext) is apparently
draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements-01. The link from the agenda
page [1] yields a 404 error and attempts
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 00:37 +0100 Tim Chown
t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
...
While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be
better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a
couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether
they were aware of
--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 least provide their feedback during the
week. So we
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:17 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
And, incidentally, is there a way for remote participants to
sign up for one or both meeting-related mailing lists without
registering (or using a remote participation registration
mechanism, which would be my
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 06:43 -0800 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/13 12:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Yes. I was thinking a bit more generally. For example,
schedule changes during the meeting week, IIR, go to NNall,
and not ietf-announce. As a remote
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 17:46 +0100 Tim Chown
t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
I see no reason why the 87attend...@ietf.org list shouldn't be
open to remote participants. Is that not the case already? We
should be doing all we can to encourage participation.
It is already. It is a bit
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 14:36 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Unfortunately 87...@ietf.org --the announce version of the
list-- is where the really important things, like schedule
changes, show up. And, at least as far as I can tell, there
is no way for a
Hi.
Borrowing from several other notes and comments, it seems to me
that we have three interlocking issues that keep recurring and
producing long discussions. They are by no means independent of
this particular draft, but seem to be becoming generic.
(1) Are we willing to publish (or even
--On Saturday, July 20, 2013 15:51 +0100 Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
But, even if the outcome wasn't a BCP along the lines
I'd prefer, I think such a beast would still be worth
having if it meant we could avoid a whole lot of these
kinds of similar discussions on
--On Saturday, July 20, 2013 15:19 -0700 Doug Barton
do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 07/20/2013 01:48 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
I think IANA registration of namespaces has a lot of value.
I think backfilling registrations for poached identifiers sets
a bad/dangerous example.
Doug,
This is
--On Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:36 -0700 Tim Bray
tb...@textuality.com wrote:
So if it's going to be used, exactly as specified, whatever
we do, then what value is added by the IETF process? -T
See my earlier note, but mostly to aid in getting the
documentation right. For example, to the
--On Saturday, July 20, 2013 19:17 -0700 Tim Bray
tb...@textuality.com wrote:
Fair enough. I think it would be reasonable to ask that:
- the draft include the word privacy
- the draft discuss the issues around relying on an identifier
that persists across changes in device ownership
--On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 07:56 -0700 Bernard Aboba
bernard_ab...@hotmail.com wrote:
Sam said:
We don't get to place requirements on applications except to
say what they need to do to use EAP. The protocol
requirement for that is that applications using EAP need to
know what
--On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:07 -0400 Ofer Inbar
c...@a.org wrote:
...
What this brings to mind is that we had a DNS system that was
vulnerable to the addition of something to the DNS that people
had expected nobody would make the mistake of doing, but it
happened and caused damage,
--On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 18:09 +0100 Adrian Farrel
adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
...
Personally, I will strongly try to be vegetarian, but eat meat
rather than starve (a situation that arises when travelling).
...
I'm in much the same situation, but suggests that part of this
feeds back into
--On Saturday, July 13, 2013 16:28 + John Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I guess I'm missing something. How exactly is having a gTLD
going to bring in the Big Bucks? Do people actually type
addresses into the address bars on their browsers any more,
or do they just type what they're
Hi.
I've been trying to stay out of the broader conversation here,
but it seems to have gone far enough into general issues...
Disclaimer and context: I felt that the DNS was better off with
deep hierarchy since before the work that led to RFC 1591
started. I hadn't changed my mind when the NRC
--On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:34 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Using paid conferences as a profit center is a risky long term
prospect at best. Refusing to adapt the format of the
conferences to protect the profit center worse.
Or adapting the format to attract
--On Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:26 -0400 Noel Chiappa
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca
I think I've seen Chinese names written in both orders.
That is, sometimes Hui Deng will be written Deng
Hui. Am I right? Does this
--On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 14:50 -0400 Donald Eastlake
d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and
attendees have always been encouraged to attend for the week.
Allowing one day passes is a recent phenomenon to which some
people, including myself,
--On Saturday, July 06, 2013 14:53 -0700 NomCom Chair 2013
nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org wrote:
I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified
individuals who have generously volunteered to serve as
voting members of this year's Nomcom.
Allison,
Given my previous comment about
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 13:49 + Ted Lemon
ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
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
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 19:43 -0400 Donald Eastlake
d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
Excuse me for replying to just part of your message below:
No problem.
I found your explanation helpful.Two observations at the
risk of repeating myself
(1) I did not make a proposal. I did
--On Sunday, July 07, 2013 19:50 +0300 0
skar...@science.alquds.edu wrote:
I am just wondered why there is any names from Arab world, no
volunteers or no acceptance for Arab people.
Thanks for giving chance to ask.
Keeping in mind that people have to volunteer their own names
(no one
--On Friday, July 05, 2013 07:40 +0100 l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
It strikes me that 'membership fees' as opposed to 'entrance
fees' could work around this payment issue. Or incur a
different tax...
But the use of a term like membership fee has profound
implications for what the IETF claims
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all
has appealed and ask yourself Do I really want to be part of
this club?
I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that
appeals, as
Allison,
Just one or two observations...
--On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 13:50 +0800 rex corpuz
rex_corpuz2...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
The more volunteers we get, the better chance we have of
choosing a random yet representative cross section of the
IETF. Respond to this challenge and strengthen
--On Friday, June 28, 2013 16:41 -0400 Joe Abley
jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
If you really think you see a legal difference in doing the
second, fine; I propose that you are just searching for
problems that do not exist.
Quite possibly they don't, and I'm not presuming to talk for
John.
1 - 100 of 1823 matches
Mail list logo
