resources (not only funds, also students are nowadays a scarce
resource) we must concentrate our efforts where the return for unit of
work is larger.
Riccardo
AB
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Riccardo Bernardini framefri...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:14 AM, George Michaelson g
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:14 AM, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
Currently, IETF standards activity carries little or no weight for an
academic career profile. It doesn't appear to have a weighting compared to
peer review publication. I think this is a shame, because the contribution
Is this the document with the proposed SOW?
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
saying that you should not use the Office suite to write it,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
saying that you should not use the
Just thinking out aloud
What about a web-cam (maybe a wireless one? Never tried to use
them...) right under the mic, so that it takes a picture of the badge
and shows it on the screen? Everyone (right?) in a meeting has a
badge wit his/her/its :) name and affiliation, so privacy concerns
script, piped to ar to extract the files (and if you have Windows,
you install cygwin :-). With this approach the source code would also
remain human-readable in the RFC text. The only drawback is the
length of the resulting RFC if the embedded code is very large.
Riccardo Bernardini
Tony
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
because more time in the air means more time without interruption where
drafts can be read before the meeting.
quiet time on a plane can be productive time.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen
kathleen.moria...@emc.com wrote:
Being a scribe can be a good way for people to know who you are (the
scribe). From reading the thread on this, when you ask someone who is new,
how about having them sit next to someone who is more familiar
I like your analysis. A comment while I am still warm
The first suggestion is a Newcomer's directorate.
(snip)
The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last call
or call for adoption) randomly selects a set number of participants from the
mailing list, and then
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
Nice post.
I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner
circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly
select people to be involved in a short online meeting to
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.orgwrote:
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
There appears to be interest in clarification, but nobody really wants to
revise the immortal words of RFC 2119, although there is a proposal to add a
few more words, like IF and THEN to the vocabulary (I'm hoping for GOTO,
myself; perhaps we can make 2119 a Turing-complete language.)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
On Fri 14/Dec/2012 09:49:30 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote:
to clarify, my proposal only applies to Internet Drafts, and clearly
states that the implementation section should be removed from the
document before it is
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For WGs that do *not* have a low bar for entry, a detailed complaint to
the chairs and the AD would be very appropriate (and probably more effective
than a rant on this
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value
is to attend the meeting physically. I attended the
That we are not reflects our inability to retain, not our inability to attract
(assuming that we are not completely refreshing the IETF attendance every
three
or four years). Should not be rocket science to follow up with some newcomers
to
find out why they only attend once and never come
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/12 7:33 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
So it seems (by this anecdotal and very limited evidence) that
[ ... ]
So it seems to me that when in possession of only anecdotal,
limited evidence that it might
I understand that this was the result of a high-level dialogue
(whatever that means) among few (how many?) people. This reminds me
of the the Emperor of China nose length problem
http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/nose.htm
Discussion among a limited group of people is not guaranteed to give
you
.
On Apr 30, 2012 4:04 AM, Riccardo Bernardini framefri...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:49 PM, IAOC Chair bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
The IESG and IAOC are considering an addition to the IETF meeting week, and
we would like your views before we develop the idea further.
At NANOG, there is a Beer and Gear reception one evening. There are
exhibitor
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Francesco Gennai
francesco.gen...@isti.cnr.it wrote:
Is this really a big enough problem to be worth solving? I can't
recall a single instance where I received IETF list with a problematic
attachment.
i travel to places with very poor bandwidth. it is a
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Lixia Zhang li...@cs.ucla.edu wrote:
On Mar 15, 2012, at 6:47 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, March 15, 2012 00:00 -0400 Ross Callon
rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
I don't like this proposal for two reasons: I frequently read
email while not
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Simon Perreault
simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote:
On 2012-03-06 08:51, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-03-06 14:41, Xavier Marjou wrote:
As a subscriber of the i-d-annou...@ietf.org list, I generally prefer
reading the HTML version of the draft rather than the
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I would be much happier with a link to the datatracker HTML version:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-name/
Would this meet your needs?
Yes, it would be fine. From my point of view the two versions are
almost equivalent,
Hi all,
just a couple of doubts about this draft
1) In Section 3 (about code 428 Precondition Required) it is said that
Responses
using this status code SHOULD explain how to resubmit the request
successfully. The example shown in Section 3 shows an error message
embedded in an HTML document.
2011/9/21 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:03:21PM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Do you have a Gray Beard?
[Ob.SpelThrd] That's spelled Grey Beard!
Oh... I believed it was a beard of Frank Gray (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gray_(researcher) )
:-)
Well, Margaret, thank you for the information (I am serious, not ironical).
I (and, I guess, many other IETFers) was not aware about this historical
usage of A Modest proposal... Although I did not make any proposal so far,
I would have used it out of modesty. You know, to say Listen, I have this
2011/7/28 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org
You're going to ask attendees to self-identify as tourists and leave
the room? Today's tourists may well become tomorrow's document
editors.
...
Let's just assign large enough rooms to BoFs and newly-formed WGs
so that the work can start
28 matches
Mail list logo
