On 13/10/2013 20:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I know we don't normally do movie plugs on this list, but anyone
who's planning to attend the technical plenary in Vancouver
could do worse than watch Terms and Conditions May Apply.
It covers both commercial and governmental invasions of privacy,
On 06/09/2013 04:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 06/09/2013 15:08, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 5, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't detect the emergency.
I think we all knew NSA was collecting the data. Why didn't we do something
about
On 31/07/2013 15:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there
is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in
AB
Thomas started posting these weekly reports many years
ago as a service to the community to remind us all that
posting to ietf@ietf.org contributes to the information
and work overload of the IETF community as a whole.
The numbers are a reminder to think carefully about what
you send to the
On 07/06/2013 09:23, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Thanks for your respond below, AB
Thank you Richard and Abdussalam for reaching agreement
on this. I regard the issue as now closed.
Regards
Stewart Bryant
(speaking as responsible Area Director)
On 28/05/2013 15:36, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
It is difficult to read, because I am expecting a process and find
something else,
I started to read, but got confused (stoped reading), why you are
titling it as creating WG-draft and mentioning the adoption into the
document. I understand that
On 29/04/2013 01:53, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
If we required the IETF to reflect the diversity of people who are,
e.g., IT network professionals, then the IETF would fall apart for lack
of ability.
[…]
If the ADs of the
On 29/04/2013 05:05, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 08:53 PM 4/28/2013, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The question that people are asking is why the diversity of the IETF leadership
doesn't reflect the diversity of _the IETF_.
Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct
On 29/04/2013 06:57, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/28/2013 10:52 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Except that the IESG members select the wg chairs, which makes your
baseline stastistic suspect; it's too easy for all sorts of biasing
factors to sway the allocation of wg chair positions.
Mike actually
On 29/04/2013 20:39, Sam Hartman wrote:
For what it's worth, I'm not finding the current discussion is providing
me useful information for making decisions. It doesn't really matter to
me whether the problem is selection of WG chairs or selection of
IAB/IESG/IAOC after WG chairs are selected.
On 19/04/2013 19:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
As a working group chair, when I stare out at a sea of faces looking
for a scribe, the chances of my asking someone I know produces good
minutes is much higher than my asking someone whose work I don't know.
Think about how this often works in WGs
On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so
AB
Have you considered that the key thing to remember in the
IETF is that:
Foo is broken because of (carefully reasoned) Bar always trumps
Foo is OK because of who I am ... and of course vise versa.
Thus in the IETF influence is a function of the ability to
carefully construct a well reasoned
.
Stewart
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com
mailto:stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Resending due to Richards change of address.
Stewart
On 11/02/2013 23:45, Richard Barnes wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART
in general terms with the
embedded routing draft cited as an example.
Thanks,
Acee
On 3/6/13 7:01 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Chairs
Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below.
Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft?
Certainly I think it would
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
If the date is
special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
Surely the correct requirement is :
If the date is special then those RFCs MUST be *hysterical*.
- Stewart
Resending due to Richards change of address.
Stewart
On 11/02/2013 23:45, Richard Barnes wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for
this draft (for background on Gen-ART,
pleaseseehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait
On 11/02/2013 23:45, Richard Barnes wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for
this draft (for background on Gen-ART,
pleaseseehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
David
In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny,
because the criteria would surely have included being experienced
with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including
knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it
seems unlikely that there would
That was the British use of the term unlikely.
Stewart
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2013, at 14:05, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny,
because the criteria would surely have
On 19/03/2013 12:59, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
I'd love to get out of this rat hole. Perhaps the signatories of the
open letter can restate the problem they see so it isn't made in terms of
race and gender.
The letter
On 20/03/2013 10:53, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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
Sex
Sexual orientation
The U.S. has a similar
A person's sex is of course only one of the recognized protected
characteristics.
*http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/protected-characteristics-definitions/*
The full set is:
Age
Disability
Gender ressignment
Marriage and civil partnetship
Chairs
Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below.
Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft?
Certainly I think it would be useful in IESG review.
Stewart
On 11/02/2013 21:15, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, Ben Campbell
On 03/03/2013 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Clearly the NomCom felt it was between a rock and a hard place; I just
want to assert the principle that balancing both managerial and technical
abilities is within NomCom's remit.
Brian
There is a subtly in the manager vs technical expert
Speaking as both a reviewer and an author, I would like
to ground this thread to some form of reality.
Can anyone point to specific cases where absence or over
use of an RFC2119 key word caused an interoperability failure,
or excessive development time?
- Stewart
to think of these as state machines and describe them
accordingly. There are other approaches which might be prevented if
using a MUST when it wasn't needed.
At 10:53 AM + 1/7/13, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Speaking as both a reviewer and an author, I would like
to ground this thread to some form
On 02/01/2013 13:44, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), and one of
the task the ITU actually has performed very well, being a positive and
constructive player.
I don't
On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi all,
I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
that's fine, it can die.
The IESG have seen
On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
Would
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally
required to do so.
fix the ambiguity?
Stewart
Dave
If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
transferred by government decree to a secretive
agency of the UN that runs by government majority.
Is that a correct
On 11/08/2012 16:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it
seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF
in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in
the time available. Brian
+1
On 22/07/2012 17:26, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/22/12 3:17 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
IF x, THEN y:
ELSE:
ELSE IF:
Please send your comments or advise, thanking you,
Yes: you might try to explain what problem you think you're
solving.
Melinda
Preferable with a list of RFC text
Bryant stbry...@cisco.com
CC: i...@ietf.org
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:30:11AM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 01/06/2012 23:00, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:54:44AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider
On 26/04/2012 23:55, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
On 25/04/2012 14:57, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
A question in line.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Adrian Farreladr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Linda,
Respect your advice. However, some wording in the proposed charter are too
ambiguous, is it the intent?
For example:
An NVO3 solution
This version of the NVO3 charter reflects the discussions
on the list and comments received as of this afternoon.
I propose to take this to the IESG for their second
review tomorrow.
Stewart
==
NVO3: Network Virtualization Over Layer 3
Chairs - TBD
Area - Routing
Area Director - Stewart
Does deleting IETF in the following
sentence:
Any documented solutions
will use existing IETF protocols if suitable.
satisfy your concerns?
- Stewart
Pelissier
-Original Message-
From: nvo3-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Pat Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:55 PM
To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant); n...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [nvo3] WG Review: Network Virtualization Overlays
Ted
I knew that SIDR was planning to hold this meeting.
The SIDR WG currently needs more interaction time
than can be accommodated within IETF week.
I verified with a number of IESG colleagues that
holding a meeting adjacent to an IETF meeting was
within the guidelines. The important point is
On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stewart Bryantstbry...@cisco.com
To: Fangyu Lifangyuli1...@gmail.com
Cc:lif...@catr.cn;ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote:
I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint
On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote:
I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1.
For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be
assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow
the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it
FYI MPLS and L2VPN WGs.
Stewart
Original Message
Subject: Last Call: (LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized
PWid FEC Elements) to Proposed Standard
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:33:04 -0800
From: The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
To:
Authors
There was on point that I notice that you did not address
from the AD review and so I am picking it up as a LC comment:
In section 10 you say:
This document makes the following update to the PwOperStatusTC
textual convention in RFC5542 [8]:
This update should be recorded in
this out Stewart. I will make the update and
publish a new revision.
Mustapha.
-Original Message-
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last
On 01/03/2012 18:28, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, March 01, 2012 13:02 -0500 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Loa:
Right now, there is no ITU-T approved document to reference.
I am certainly not an expert on ITU-T process, but my
understanding is that earliest that we could
Daniel
Shortage of ACh types was never an issue.
The issue issue is the concerns articulated in
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations
Stewart
On 23/02/2012 10:35, Daniel Cohn wrote:
Support - as there is no foreseen shortage in ACH types, I don't see a
reason why this code point should
Feng
Surely you agree with me that the primary consideration is that
we should do what what we collectively believe is best for the
Internet in the long term?
There are many cases where the IETF has been presented with
an existing implementation, but the collective view is that
the pre-standards
PWE3 WG
Please see the note further down the thread requesting that
any discussion take place on ietf@ietf.org
Stewart
On 27/02/2012 14:27, Stewart Bryant wrote:
My understanding is that the Recommendation called up by
this draft proposes this as a new OAM be used for PWs.
I do not think
mailto:pwe3-cha...@tools.ietf.org; Stewart Bryant
*Subject:* [PWE3] Auth48 comments on
draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10
During Auth 48, the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status
found some issues with the acknowledgement procedures in Section
5.3 of the draft that we feel
I believe that version 24 addresses all of the actionable
comments that the authors have received and I propose
to continue with the publication process by requesting IESG
review.
Stewart
Original Message
Subject:Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-24.txt
On 08/12/2011 18:51, Russ Housley wrote:
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors and
IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are
On 08/12/2011 19:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors
and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are no
Adrian
It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of
this document on the working group lists would be a distraction
from the technical protocol work that the working groups
need to do.
I disagree with the document shepherd in his evaluation.
The draft clearly sets out to
On 02/12/2011 13:29, t.petch wrote:
Original Message -
From: Thomas Nadeautnad...@lucidvision.com
To: Huub helvoorthuub.van.helvo...@huawei.com
Cc: Adrian Farreladr...@olddog.co.uk;
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-po...@tools.ietf.org; The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org;Ietf@ietf.org
Sent:
On 30/11/2011 05:46, Mark Andrews wrote:
In messagem2r50q42nn.wl%ra...@psg.com, Randy Bush writes:
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made available?
Aren't there a
On 28/11/2011 19:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Sam;
Wearing no hats. This is my own personal take on matters.
Also, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Please note that I, personally, do not
think that this will be trivial or easy to come up with.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at
On 05/10/2011 10:38, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo wrote:
major unresolved technical concerns
Alessandro
Please can I suggest that you write an internet draft detailing
these major unresolved technical concerns so that we
can all understand them.
Such a draft needs to be technical, and
Tom
I would take issue with OSPF/ISIS and IPv4/IPv6.
Please can you expand a little on this.
Stewart
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
3) The global wide application of Ethernet services requires that the
operator’s network must support Y.1731 Ethernet OAM, to guaranteeing
the SLA for customers. Although many operators had expressed their
requirements for MPLS-TP OAM using draft-bhh/G.8113.1 in IETF meetings
and mail-list,
It is clear that:
1) RFC6074 is the IETF recommended approach.
2) That draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn is in active deployment.
The question is whether the number of independent
deployments of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn is
increasing or not. In other words is this a legacy
approach that will over
On 01/09/2011 15:37, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Stewart
Was this email meant to address my email to the IETF discussion list
(from Tues 16 Aug)
or just the discussion on MPLS and PWE lists ?
It does to SOME extent, as it leaves open the possibility of the GAL
not being at BoS;
but it does not
On 01/09/2011 17:07, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Yaakov,
You've written
PW that starts in an MPLS-TP domain, can easily leak into a non-TP
domain
This is exactly the point that I've raised in my IETF LC comment on
the draft (for MS-PW) - please see my email (to several lists) that
Reviewing this discussion there are three components.
1) The update of RFC5586 to allow PW to use the GAL.
2) The PW OAM application that is to use the GAL.
3) The label stack structure when teh GAL is used with a PW
This draft is only concerned with point 1 above. Points
2 and 3 need to be
Sasha
On 30/08/2011 13:22, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Stewart,
I believe that your item #1 is presumably addressed by
draft-ietf-pwe3-gal-in-pw (with the changes you’ve proposed),
draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2 is an attempt to address your item #2, and
your item #3 is not yet addressed. Is
On 25/08/2011 18:12, Mary Barnes wrote:
I am also a fan of Minneapolis for meetings - the facilities at the
Hilton are perfect for our needs. There's lots of food options. It
has good air connections and there is decent pubic transport from the
airport to the city. However, this seems to be
On 10/08/2011 19:35, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for reading.
Nits/editorial comments:
-- section 1, paragraph 4: ...with relation to the programming...
... in relation to...
Yeah. RFC Editor note if Stewart is watching (although I'm guessing the RFC
Editor might just fix this
On 12/07/2011 23:23, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, Joel (et al.),
On 7/10/2011 7:10 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
Joe,
THE KARP WG Chairs have reviewed your comments, in order to figure out
what the best way to address them. We would appreciate it if you could
engage in discussion of this proposal on the
Rolf
Thank you for the review
On 19/05/2011 14:24, Rolf Winter wrote:
CONTENT:
Section 3 says:
If a flow LSE is present, it MUST be checked to determine whether it
carries a reserved label. If it is a reserved label the packet is
processed according to the rules associated with that
The IESG is considering making this statement on the
processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata.
We would appreciate community feedback.
Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June.
Thanks
Stewart
==
Draft text for IESG Statement on RFC Metadata
Date: xx-xxx-
This IESG
The RTG-dir review comments :
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg01533.html
Should be addressed before publication.
- Stewart
On 25/05/2011 17:13, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Point-to-Point Protocol
Extensions WG (pppext) to consider the
I will put a note in the tracker
Stewart
On 15/03/2011 19:52, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:26 PM
To: draft-ietf-isis-genapp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team; The IETF
On 20/12/2010 18:43, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Sam Hartmanhartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Radia == Radia Perlmanradiaperl...@gmail.com writes:
Radia No objections. Radia
Can I get someone to confirm that the text in the proposed sentences is
Michel Py wrote:
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Hard to believe but Morse is still in use and required
for certain classes of radio operators.
For good reasons; in difficult conditions, Morse still delivers the
message when the voice has long stopped being recognizable. Morse would
be like ASCII:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Dec 15 02:08:08 2009, IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
On Mon, Dec XIV, MMIX at XX:X, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote:
great idea - and we should als adopt Latin numbers!
...
Loa Andersson
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
Ericsson ///
phone: +46 10 717 52 13
Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote:
ITU-T SG15 has a history of OAM protocol development for transport
technologies. This expertise has led to development of an OAM
methodology and definition approach as documented in G.806.
Jonathan
Unfortunately the latest version of G.806 is showing up as
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Are our members who are Falun Gong practitioners going to be
persecuted for their beliefs while attending IETF? Are our members
who are active in Tibetan or Taiwanese independence movements going
to be quietly picked up off the street outside our venue?
Colin Perkins wrote:
I have no significant problems using xml2rfc, and find it easier to
write Internet-Drafts using xml2rfc than I did using nroff, LaTeX, or
Microsoft Word.
+1
... and I am quite happy to use the online compiler.
Stewart
___
Paul
It appears that people have forgotten that, when needed for clear artwork, RFCs
can be published in PDF format. This has been done in the past, and can be done
again in the future. If WGs are not doing some work because of fear of not
having it published as an RFC because of the
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3 jul 2009, at 0:35, Pete Resnick wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently
constrained.
Or, gee, we could generalize to a very constrained XML format
XML isn't a display format.
As Dave put it, the current RFC format is unfriendly,
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3 jul 2009, at 13:13, Stewart Bryant wrote:
That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a
reader centric view.
Do we have any objective information on what format produced the
clearest information transfer in the reader.
Well, readers
John Leslie wrote:
Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a
reader centric view.
I must dissent.
Reader-centric views belong to publishing entities that generate
income (whether by purchase, subscription
Pete
Getting rid of a page-layout format as our authoritative form is
primary. Using characters that do not occur in English is next down
the list. Everything else is extra.
Surely maximizing the probability of correct understanding
by the reader is primary. Everything else is just a
Tim Bray wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnumiljit...@muada.com wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently constrained. HTML
allows for the reflowing of text, solving issues with text and screen sizes.
It's also extremely widely implemented, so
To save time, I would suggest adopting the Patent Office rules on
Perpetual Motion. People advocating for a change to facilitate figures
(or to allow complicated math, such as tensor analysis) should have an
existence proof, i.e., a document that requires the change to be
published. (A
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Something like: This is the list of those
nominated (or self-nominated) for IESG positions. The
nominees have said that they're willing to serve if
selected, but there is no implication that they consider
the incumbent unsuited for re-appointment.
Presumably there
Scott
- In this one paragraph:
Note that although Figure 4 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may
transit more one S-PE along its path. This architecture is
applicable when the S-PEs are statically chosen, or when they are
chosen using a dynamic path selection mechanism. Both
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our
IPR information
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Take it off line. This has nothing to do with the IETF.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Except as requirements for TICTOC.
Stewart
Another option would be to run until 1300, that's still early enough
to have lunch but it does give us a 1.5 hour extra timeslot but only
takes that 1.5 hours, not 3.5 like the 1300 - 1500 timeslot so people
with flights at 1700 or even 1600 can possibly attend.
We could maybe start earlier
Eric
Missing drafts
draft-shen-csi-ecc-00.txt (wg=csi)
draft-ietf-ccid4-02.txt (wg=dccp)
draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11.txt (wg=eai)
draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt (wg=eai)
draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt (wg=ntp)
draft-ietf-psamp-info-07.txt (wg=ipfix)
At least three ADs believe that the examples should be changed
I agree with them.
Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to
the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical
and/or financial) to mild embarrassment.
If anyone wants to use an
Beginning
Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question: Is the accomplishment of this document considered to be the
end or rather the beginning of activities on the rerouting topic ?
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 29.04.2008 22:35:53 Westeuropäische Normalzeit
schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Adrian Farrel wrote:
Good point Jari,
Can I also remind you to check in the RFC Errata pages to make sure you pick
up any errors that have been flagged since RFC publication.
Of course you mean the *relevant* errata - the RFC Erratas page is so
full of junk these days that it is
I believe that it's appropriate for the confirming bodies to ask for
additional information if they have reason to doubt that due proces
has been followed or that some of the proposed appointees are suitable.
Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
followed to the
Ping Pan wrote:
Exactly! It is one impressive spec: clean and simple. Looking at its
adaptation, I wonder why in the world it was not adapted and done in IETF.
On the other hand, it may take too long in IETF, and would require extensive
debate over architecture, framework, requirements... ;-)
-
What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the plenary
speakers without jabber sessions?
That would be pretty major!
We have had PWE3 contributors who were unable to be present in the
meeting, listen on audio and use IM for questions.
Lets do the experiment, but lets not
Eric Burger wrote:
See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf
Which seems to be only available to those prepared to pay.
Stewart
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scott
Historically the biggest issue with IPFIX has been that most
implementers want to run it over UDP with consequences be dammed. -
this was weaseled in the IPFIX Requirements document (RFC 3917) by
requiring (in section 6.3.1) that For the data transfer, a congestion
aware protocol must be
Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work
done if we had more meetings outside the US?
Stewart
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
