On 10/2/2013 9:15 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
1 April RFCs excepted
Ah.
I'm sitting here banging my head on a desk thinking I knew that ...
thanks, Scott!
Spencer
is what counts. As we know, that does not necessarily correlate with any
particular statistic...
Spencer Dawkins made an insightful comment which I would look into if I was
looking for a better metric.
Ok. Which comment are you referring to? I'm sorry, too much e-mail to know what
you
On 9/18/2013 8:59 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Andy, we just don't have a tradition of identifying people whose
contributed to RFCs with either contact or identification
information. It is explicitly possible when Contributors
sections are created and people are listed there, but contact or
On 9/6/2013 10:46 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
The threat model isn't really the NSA per se—if they really want to
bug you, they will, and you can't stop them, and that's not a
uniformly bad thing. The problem is the breathtakingly irresponsible
weakening of crypto systems that has been alleged here,
On 9/6/2013 11:38 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com
I have to wonder whether weakening crypto systems to allow pervasive
passive monitoring by national agencies would weaken them enough for
technologically savvy corporations
On 9/4/2013 11:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
to say that we will never again
On 9/3/2013 9:26 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
The new text is as follows: Participants, particularly those with
English as a first language, attempt to accommodate the needs of
other participants by communicating clearly. Participants try to
accommodate
On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
in line
On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
wrote:
at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd
paragraph in the same section
An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
appear in each
On 9/3/2013 6:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
rant class=shortSo that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs
that
update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves./rant
On Monday, August 5, 2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote:
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in
On 8/4/2013 3:10 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the slides 1
week in advance?
You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't
normative. Even when they're not about a draft in particular, the slides are
not
On 8/4/2013 8:36 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Regarding the need for presentations early to get them translated, and the
non-Procrustean[1] improvement of having cutoffs for presentations of new
drafts: new drafts are still submitted 2 weeks in advance, and ISTM that a real
non-Procrustean
On 7/9/2013 8:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but
not if they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and
organization is now a significant factor in what we can expect from
volunteers -- not all, but even some of those from
On 6/6/2013 8:12 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
- 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is
possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even
joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information
to anyone who requests it. However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress
is
For those of you looking at where I-D and RFC authors are from, I'd like
to suggest one other thing to look at - the extent that participants are
co-authoring with folks outside their region.
It's pretty tempting for new participants to submit drafts that they
like, and maybe reaching out to
On 5/28/2013 10:22 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
In reading through the draft, particularly the section on questions for
WG adoption of a draft, I did not see the questions I consider most
pertinent:
I appreciate Dave and Adrian for producing this helpful start, and I'm
mostly comfortable with
On 5/8/2013 10:50 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Heather, all,
You are correct, Peter. MISSREF and AUTH48 are not part of the RFC
Editor timed states, and the RFC Editor timed states have been largely
under 7 weeks for the last year.
Indeed. The actual time for what RFC Editor does for documents is
On 4/19/2013 1:47 PM, Dave Cridland 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 discuss the
draft, rather than
On 4/12/2013 12:49 AM, SM wrote:
At 13:46 11-04-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
If the IAB means members, the number for females, as far as I
know(*), is 2/15, or 13 percent. If it means voting members, the
number for females is 1/13, or just under 8 percent.
If I use the 13% I can say
On 4/12/2013 8:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:32 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Thomas Narten mentioned that: we have the tendency to pick the people we know and
trust, which is understandable. How many IAB members feel strongly about open
standards, rough consensus and
On 4/11/2013 3:09 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Dave Crocker suggested getting an expert. I don't think that would help. Such
an expert would tell you that the questions you can ask depends on the group
you are asking. Questions that would be acceptable in one country, would be
inappropriate in
Hi, SM,
This may be a misprint ...
On 4/11/2013 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female.
0.1% of IAB members are female
0 % of IESG members are female.
Based on the above measurements the IAOC is
On 4/5/2013 9:09 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
I too have always found at least one of the Crocker brothers {suspicious,
smart, funny, irrelevant, prescient, handsome, annoying, etc.}. I've never been
able to tell which is which :)
There are days when I'm really glad to be part of this community
I'm somewhat worried at the lurch this thread has taken into the land of
protected classes, legal advice, etc. I hope we do not go there.
Having said that ... since Eric asked ...
On 3/20/2013 9:57 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
Going a bit over-the-top: is there an interaction between sex and
On 3/20/2013 11:21 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
So I guess I've formed the impression that merely being nominated for a
position doesn't really mean that a person is available.
[MB] You have to keep in mind in the past
On 3/19/2013 4:09 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.
Why am I encouraged every time I come across a problem that can be
solved with duct tape? :-)
Spencer
On 3/19/2013 8:01 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I think this means we should closely consider the goals of a mentoring effort.
Is it to help them navigate the IETF structure, personalities, and immune
system to get something done? Is it to help them become the next generation of
IETF leaders? I
What Mary said, especially from a chair perspective.
I stepped down as co-chair of three working groups just as the Meetecho
team reached cruising speed, but they were very active in MediaCtrl and
we benefited considerably from using an early version in Hiroshima. If I
was co-chairing three
On 3/18/2013 2:34 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Yes and no.
I would get rid of all the dots, possible yes.
In general, I like the scope of what's being questioned in the past week
or so, even if the answer comes back we talked about this, and the
other stuff we could think of
On 3/18/2013 5:04 PM, SM wrote:
At 13:49 18-03-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
There are dots, and then there are dots. The one I'd like to see
continued the most is the orange dot, for Nomcom members. We choose
the voting members at random out of a volunteer pool, with some
qualifications
On 3/14/2013 7:30 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Mary,
I need to check but...
[MB] What I find interesting is that there was 200+ newcomers, but I
certainly didn't find that many at the meet and greet. I have to
wonder whether this doesn't have to do with the overlap between Sunday
tutorials and
On 3/14/2013 7:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
(2) Our newcomers model doesn't distinguish likely long-term
participants from tourists. I think we should be welcoming to
the tourists but, in terms of, e.g., scarce mentoring resources,
spending time on them is a bad optimization. In addition
On 3/14/2013 3:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
As to the newcomer meet and greet... I actually think we got it a bit
backwards. I think that WG chairs should be uninvited. (as much as I
like free beer). Rather, I think that the newcomer meet and greet
(and free beer) should follow the
On 3/13/2013 1:45 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/13/2013 10:27 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
4. Nomcom makes its own decision about the criteria it will use for
selecting nominees; as such, it really is defining the /actual/
requirements for positions.
I think we need to acknowledge that the
On 3/12/2013 1:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought
I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. No
offense was intended and I used the Martian terminology
precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and
apologize
On 3/11/2013 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote:
I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important.
There are several steps that could be taken, in the short
On 3/11/2013 1:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 03/11/2013 01:43 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
My opinion is that we agree we have a situation that we should
improve,
but also we shouldn't focus on the nomcom process, the problem is not
about how we select people (it may help but it is not the root
the community is comfortable with.
Thanks,
Spencer
(In alphabetical order)
Spencer Dawkins
On 3/10/2013 2:50 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/10/13 15:43, John Levine allegedly wrote:
- Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the
IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could make a
public statement at the beginning of each year's nominations
For what it's worth,
On 3/10/2013 5:45 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/10/2013 1:04 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
+1. We do not want to manage by ideology - consider how well that
serves political parties.
Right.
My right here was in the context of the snipped line above +1, which
On 3/10/2013 9:08 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Do you feel that what's described
in the letter is an accurate and complete description of
the/a problem?
Well, sure. I signed it, right? :D
I have some heartburn about the paragraph on the confirming bodies in
the short-term, within-BCPs section,
I posted a couple of links to detailed Nomcom reports from Mary
(2009-2010) and Joel (2008-2009) yesterday - they're available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00
and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-nomcom-report-00
Mike provided a pointer to
On 3/7/2013 5:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice have a
way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements are.
Why is the Nomcom
On 3/7/2013 6:54 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] Personally, I don't think the .ppts at the plenary should be the
only Nomcom report. It's really hard to tease things out from
bullet points. Per my earlier note, I believe the community should
expect that the nomcom chair produce a written report
On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
On this specific point ...
Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
material such as future job prospects or even plans
On 3/5/2013 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 05/03/2013 11:55, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a
On 3/4/2013 2:31 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the
Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt
I have a general question for the community as to whether they find
such reports useful and
Just as a follow-up here ...
I was John's co-author on RFC 3933 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3933).
When we were working on the draft, the problem I thought we were
solving, was that the IESG needs to update the IETF's BCP processes from
time to time, but (1) it was like 32 simultaneous
On 11/29/2012 3:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Just picking at one point...
According to some RFC:
All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
a session starts.
If the above was followed there
On 11/10/2012 10:57 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote:
I think that we haven't done a sufficiently good job of
acculturating newer participants and that can probably make
the organization look more opaque and closed than it
Thank you, Joel, for putting pen to paper (pixels to glass?) on this,
and thank you, Jari, Randy, and Warren for sharing your thoughts.
As was pointed out, we've had conversations about LIMs previously. It
might be worth asking Ray to provide a paragraph or two on history and
the motivations
Hi, Thomas,
Thanks for your help in the talent search!
I haven't seen a reply to your note, but it's worth mentioning that the
IAB ExecDir is no longer responsible for weekly telechat minutes, and at
least some of the IT/web responsibilities performed by previous ExecDirs
are moving to the
Hi, Yaakov,
I'm not the right guy to answer this, but I believe the right guy would
say that when we are asked for evidence about prior art, it would be
more helpful if you could actually read the presentations from the
working group meeting where somebody's invention was discussed by other
Hi, Russ,
I won't take plenary time to ask this, but ...
My memory from being on the EDU Team for a while was that the EDU Team
itself was broader than just the list of people who did tutorials -
looking at what additional training was required, etc.
Is that still true? It might be helpful
On 11/16/2011 3:36 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
HI Spencer,
We are responsible for the tutorials, which includes deciding what new
tutorials are needed, and working with people in the community to deliver them.
Not all of the people who _teach_ the tutorials are on the EDU Team, although
For what it's worth, I've been a repeat-offender note-taker for a bunch of
groups at the IETF, and was doing that when we mass-created all the
jabber.ietf.org rooms.
It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be
continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had
We've come a long way.
That would make sense to me.
Spencer
It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be
continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to
correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes
swamped the ability of
For Mike, Marshall, and for others who might be noodling on this ...
I hesitate to suggest this, but its probably time:
Let's add a position to the IESG - Executive Vice-Chair or Co-Adjutor
Chair. Basically, either the chair's personal representative (Executive
Vice-Chair) or their
Jari,
I found your review comments to be very thoughtful and helpful. I understand
the concerns you are raising, and I agree that your proposed way forward is
reasonable.
I did have one question:
So here's what I would like to propose. The document goes forward but we
make a much clearer
For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of the
justification for Olaf's proposal.
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions less
of a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
I could be in the rough on whether this specific proposal is the
Murry,
I think I agree that a wiki page for every RFC is too chaotic an idea to
be workable.
I agree with the thought that the suggestion under consideration could
usefully be amended as a wiki page for every RFC that needs one.
If I write a specification, it's published as an RFC, and we
Hi, Dave,
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions
less of
a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I think it
accurately summarizes the focus of this thread, so far.
Thanks for the wake-up
I'm speaking as an individual, albeit an individual who helped with the
decrufting effort in NEWTRK ... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4450.txt, for
those who missed it.
undertaking an effort to reclassify many pre-IETF (pre-1000)
RFCs as Historic.
Given that these are pre-IETF RFCs, I move
Lars,
For what it's worth, I have the same question as Ben - if this guidance
applies to the kinds of informal meetings in restaurants and bars that the
IESG is encouraging, even if they aren't publicized and aren't open to the
community, is there any way for two or more IETF participants to
Hi, Melinda,
Can anybody point to an incident in which lack of clarity around
2119 language caused problems, and it was determined that 2119
itself was the problem and not authors or editors being careless?
Melinda
My recollection is that, at least since the early 2000s, most problems
were
Dear Jari,
During the discussion of the two maturity levels change, a question was
brought up about DISCUSSes appropriate for documents that advance on the
standards track. We discussed this in the IESG and I drafted some
suggested guidelines. Feedback on these suggestions would be welcome.
the S in IESG, AFAICT.
Thanks,
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: Jari Arkko ; IETF Discussion
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards
track
thanks Spencer
Umm, wait. I'm confused.
The boilerplate in existing documents points to 2119, right? and the updated
boilerplate would point to this spec, if approved, right? so we're not
retroactively changing the meaning of anything, right?
What am I missing?
Spencer
- Original Message -
Peter,
Thank you for submitting this draft. It clarifies some of the most
consistent sources of cyclic discussion that appear on the IETF discussion
list.
I have a couple of questions.
The most consistent source of cyclic discussion that I didn't see addressed,
is the use of RFC 2119
I have been looking at various revisions of this draft since -00. I'm glad
Lars did the first version during IETF 77, and I'm glad that Lars and
Gonzalo kept working on it.
I think it's important guidance for the community. I think it's on the right
track. I think it could reasonably be
Peter,
A side benefit is that the IESG/IAB could have a lunch meeting on Friday
(as opposed to the current breakfast meeting) and cover all the hot
topics from the week (not the week minus Friday).
/psa
I agree with your point here, and add that the joint IAB/IESG Friday session
isn't only
The IETF chair, the IAB chair, and the ISOC President/CEO may
delegate their responsibilities to other persons. The delegations by
the IETF chair and the IAB chair need to be confirmed by the IESG and
IAB respectively. The terms of delegation is for a longer term for
instance
I was not assuming that delegation was limited to another member of the same
NomCom-reviewed body. One case was that you might delegate to a
NomCom-reviewed member who then leaves the NomCom-reviewed body. If the
NomCom-reviewed chair and the NomCom-reviewed body were OK with that person
Hi, J.D.,
But I do think posting draft text does allow you to say and the
community saw this if you guys get any pushback at all...
+1
The same process internet-drafts go through, right? Or as close as makes
sense.
If process means a chance for the community to look and comment before
For what it's worth,
I agree that when you're talking to the community about RFPs, it's great if
that doesn't turn into a wordsmithing exercise on the ietf mailing list,
And I agree that providing a list of things that lawyers have already done
for us is a very reasonable basis for an RFP
Phillip,
Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing the
phrase unassigned to something like reserved for future assignment.
That made sense to me...
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Iljitsch van
I like the idea of using break time for these conversations, much better
than either burning a regular meeting slot or expecting poster authors to
hang around all day waiting for interested parties to surface ... if this
goes forward, that's what I would suggest.
Thanks,
Spencer
On Jan 10,
Eliot,
I'm agreeing with John here, but have one addition ...
Call it what you will, this sounds like NEWTRK revisited.
What will be different?
At least three things... maybe.
First, I/we have been told repeatedly that this is a new
IESG and that, even were we to revisit NEWTRK exactly,
we
Russ,
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
Thank you for the
I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
based on the specification in RFCn:
-a
-b
-c
- ...
wfm.
and seems very reasonable to me as well...
Spencer
Hi, Ned,
Russ,
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
Assuming, of course, that we continue to expect that the IESG will do the
right thing, whatever that turns out to be ...
Henk == Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net writes:
Henk So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the
7
Henk or 8 meeting slots in each session are
Hi, Yoav,
Recognizing that we all work in different parts of the IETF, so our
experiences reflect that ...
RFCs have one big advantage over all kinds of blessed internet drafts.
The process of publishing an RFC gets the IANA allocations. Every
implementation you make based on a draft will
You could call me a blue-eyed optimist, but I have brown eyes ...
What other motivation could there be to publishing documents earlier
than vendors implementing and shipping it earlier? And if they do
that, there is hardly any room for any substantial or backwards-
incompatible changes. And
Ummm, no.
So would you even make public the comments that people send in?
IMHO we have not agree to this (and I wouldn't support it).
Ross
Here's the new text from RFC 5680 (and it's all additions, no deletions or
changes) at the end of the three paragraphs in [RFC3777], Section 3,
If this was some place in the US, I could easily find a cheap hotel chain
nearby (like I did in Anaheim). In Europe, it's a little more difficult,
but still doable (thanks, Google Earth). In China, I have no idea where to
even look. Sure, I can find a list of cheap hotels in Beijing, but I
(snork!)
Why do we not simply choose a single venue and have all our
meetings there?
Or perhaps three venues, one on each continent of interest.
Figuring out where to meet is Hard. I'm glad the NomCom can find people who
will play this game for no salary.
Just to mention one point
I'm sure other people remember this, but ...
I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying
a new venue is a lot of work.
One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save
money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to
quantify
Offlist
I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize
the cost of getting our work done, not to minimize the cost for walk-in
attendees. However, to measure this, I suggest we count contributions
as we do for IPR purposes:
c. IETF Contribution: any submission to
HAH...
Offlist
Awesome. My apologies for asking the offline question onlist.
It's like they'll let ANYBODY post here :-(
Spencer
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
In the case of the 2 BarBOFS I organized at IETF-78, in both cases
there were very useful contributions made by people I didn't know and
therefore wouldn't have invited. Even if the efforts fail (and one of
them was DOA and will not move forward), I am glad to have had the
opportunity to get to
Just saying ... too late.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BarBofsIETF78 and predecessors have
been out there for at least a couple of IETFs (like you guys, I'm
exhausted, and in my case, too exhausted to check how many IETFs we've had
such pages, but I know we had a list in Anaheim).
Dave,
John,
On 7/24/2010 2:24 PM, John Leslie wrote:
How can we impose additional
experience requirements on some NomCom members without implying that
we want their opinions to be considered better?
I've been on 3 Nomcoms. Voting members with experience are typically
notable, but those
As a former IESG scribe, I would encourage anyone who is interested in
understanding the IETF (and especially the IESG) better to volunteer as
scribes - and there would be little penalty (from my perspective) in having
several more scribes. When I started, Marshall Eubanks and I shared scribe
I've mentioned this to Russ privately, but it's worth saying it out loud ...
Phillip:
Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
included the whole IESG.
I made my reply to your posting because I want
OK, we really do seem determined to relive the early 2000s...
It seems to me that abolishing the third level is possible, now, because
the handling of I-Ds has been enhanced. IMHO, it is an advantage to
require some experience before giving an I-D the rank of Proposed
Standard. Because I-Ds
Russ,
Thank you/the secretariat for chasing this level of detail down. I suspected
the numbers would look something like this, and didn't want to ask for it,
but it's much appreciated that you guys did check.
With the addition of this information to the previous debate I am
supportive of
Doug,
I had also wished for numbers that more clearly translated into impact on
who was NomCom eligible (as you requested), but decided not to, simply
because I wasn't convinced this would matter enough on who was selected to
serve on NomCom, to justifiy spending secretariat time gathering
I would like to chime in on this aspect of John's note...
I'd also suggest that those who don't like FTP and think we
should do no more work on it should not be complaining about
this draft, or others, but should be writing an I-D explaining
their case. If they can get enough consensus to get
Dear IESG,
I'm conflicted on this one. I agree that three days at IETF meetings does
not a NomCom member make, but I know several people who are very
experienced, but who are self-funding, and I can easily imagine someone
doing a day pass during a trough in their business cycle.
I would be
1 - 100 of 571 matches
Mail list logo
