ard(at)shockey.us>
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael StJohns
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:03 PM
To: Glen Zorn; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Sta
Hi Dave,
I agree that procedure of ietf processes should be respected and
followed by all, and/or community should understand such difference in
process before asked its opinion. I hope your comments will be
considered by IETF and IAB in the future.
thanking you for your comments,
AB
--
On 13/08/2012 04:03, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
> We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected
> a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks. Efficiency
> suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.
At the risk of being
On Aug 13, 2012, at 04:58, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Why is it useful?
Because it elicits considered reactions like yours and Mike StJohns', and
allows us to make explicit and affirm the (rough) consensus that we seem to
share about the role and purview of our leadership. (I'm not asking for
Glen and others -
I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF
and IAB chairs do not "'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves". I
believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to
the IETF.
I agree the IETF is not a "repr
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:49:35PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We
> should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities
> that include the IETF
Why is it useful?
As far as I know, this is the very first time
At 10:51 12-08-2012, Stewart Bryant wrote:
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 m
On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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
On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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
On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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 ru
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 assessmen
On 8/12/2012 9:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?
1 Aug to
>> It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from
>> that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
>> the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
>
> Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?
1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four
On 8/12/2012 8:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?
When did
> My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not
> being used. Something quite different is being used.
I'm not so sure.
It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing:
- The IAB Chair announced the text
Hi Glen,
At 23:13 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
Sorry, I don't get your point. The referenced RFC says
It was the Spring of 1995. The place was known as Danvers. That
meeting is remembered because of the Danvers Doctrine.
Presumably, the IAB & IESG came to this concern through consensus
a
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:49 -0700, SM wrote:
...
>
> At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
> >any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large
> >is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a
> >much better idea & much less deceptive.
>
> RFCs, for ex
At 08:20 11-08-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and
it's not being used. Something quite different is being used.
I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an
implication of IETF community support is going to be presen
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > consensus-oriented process
>
> Sometimes, though, you have to act.
>
> While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
> improve (or deteriorate) the docum
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
> > Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars"
> ...
> > (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate
> > in this
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
Stewar
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used
to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons
On 11/08/2012 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
>> Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars"
> ...
>> (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really
>> appropriate in this case.)
>
>
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used
to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
> consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with
Randy Bush: Signing it now is
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars"
...
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in
this case.)
The "for the IRTF" underscores a possible concern in the current
situation.
+1
Alkuperäinen viesti
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars"
Vastaanottaja: Bob Hinden
Kopio: IAB ,IETF
On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document.
+1
(I
On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document.
+1
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in
this case.)
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
28 matches
Mail list logo