On Jan 24, 2013 3:42 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by
On Jan 24, 2013, at 04:41, wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by
This is my last comment on the CRLF issue, which I just used as the
(for me) obvious example for what I was trying to say.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 02:20, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Oh, my. This is getting to be interesting. I had no direct
interaction with or insight into the ASA
On Jan 24, 2013, at 04:41, wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by
Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by rationalizing the spelling and
punctuation of
Hi Brian, Hi Joel,
the point of my mail was not to start a discussion about the examples I
provided but to note that the suggested let's reduce complexity by reducing
options is not as easy as it sounds in practice.
In the context of the document Stephen wrote and the proposal that was made
On 1/23/13 1:27 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Brian, Hi Joel,
the point of my mail was not to start a discussion about the examples I provided but to
note that the suggested let's reduce complexity by reducing options is not as
easy as it sounds in practice.
The prototypical human
John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
My, what a bunch of parvenus. SIP got it from SMTP, SMTP got it from
Telnet. Back in the 1960s we all used CRLF because on a
mechanical model 33 or 35 Teletype, CR really returned the carriage,
LF really advanced the platen, and you needed both. I first
Tony == Tony Finch d...@dotat.at writes:
My, what a bunch of parvenus. SIP got it from SMTP, SMTP got it from
Telnet. Back in the 1960s we all used CRLF because on a
mechanical model 33 or 35 Teletype, CR really returned the carriage,
LF really advanced the platen, and you
On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/13 7:16 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
Microsoft-OS text editors. Seriously. People wanted to be able to
write correct SIP messages using text editors, and there were more
Microsoft users than Linux users on the list.
--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 06:15 + John Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Additionally, I can't understand why each line is terminated
with CRLF, why use two characters when one will do.
Microsoft-OS text editors. Seriously.
My, what a bunch of parvenus. SIP got it from SMTP,
Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, c'mon. MS products and MacOS at the time used CRLF for newlines
generally, not just in Word.
Classic Mac OS used bare CR for newlines, as did a number of 8 bit micros.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
Forties,
Cc: dean.wil...@softarmor.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: CRLF (was: Re: A modest proposal)
--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 06:15 + John Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Additionally, I can't understand why each line is terminated
with CRLF, why use two
--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 13:45 -0500 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
...
Yup, and Unix users have the ability to choose line endings:
Emacs -
M-x set-buffer-file-coding-system RET undecided-dos
...
Not exactly. Depending on the particular version/
implementation, most
IIR, Multics from several years earlier. I'd have to dig
through old manuals to remember what CTSS did, but that system
(and the IBM Model 1050 and 2741 devices often used as terminals
with it) were somewhat pre-ASCII (and long before ECMA-48/ ANSI
X3.64 and the VT100 and friends) and, IIR,
On Jan 23, 2013, at 20:56, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
But having CR as an unambiguous return to first
character position on line was important for overstriking
(especially underlining) on a number of devices including line
printers as well as TTY equipment.
But John, on a TTY,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, John Day wrote:
IIR, Multics from several years earlier. I'd have to dig
through old manuals to remember what CTSS did, but that system
(and the IBM Model 1050 and 2741 devices often used as terminals
with it) were somewhat pre-ASCII (and long before ECMA-48/
What was your source for this information? Or
did you just make it up? Because it is faulty.
FTP did not grow out of Telnet. The decision
to use Telnet was quite conscious for both FTP
and SMTP so that a human at a terminal on a TIP
could be FTP or SMTP user process and was hardly
From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net
Multics was based on EBCDIC which had a New Line (NL) character but
no CR or LF. The ARPANET went with the ASCII standard. But I never
forgave the ANSI committee for taking left arrow out of the character
set (as a replacement operator).
Which
A great deal of complexity comes from the fact that standards are
rarely created in a vacuum.
In this case, RFC 3261 SIP had to be upward-compatible from RFC 2543
SIP. And the early design of RFC 2543 SIP was influenced (I am told)
by the idea that SIP messages should be able to go through HTTP
Then what am I mis-remembering? ;-) Was it that Multics didn't use
CRLF and only NL? I remember this as quite a point of discussion
when we were defining Telnet and FTP.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, John Day wrote:
IIR, Multics from several years earlier. I'd have to dig
through old
--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 18:05 -0500 John Day
jeanj...@comcast.net wrote:
Then what am I mis-remembering? ;-) Was it that Multics
didn't use CRLF and only NL? I remember this as quite a point
of discussion when we were defining Telnet and FTP.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, John Day
--On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 23:29 +0100 Carsten Bormann
c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, at 20:56, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
wrote:
But having CR as an unambiguous return to first
character position on line was important for overstriking
(especially underlining) on a
Hi -
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
To: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
Cc: John Levine jo...@taugh.com; ietf@ietf.org;
dean.wil...@softarmor.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Vestigial Features (was Re: CRLF (was: Re: A modest proposal))
...
So, yes, some
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by rationalizing the spelling and
punctuation of written English (which is the coding
Hi Melinda,
On Jan 22, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
there's general agreement that options are not a good thing and
a pretty decent understanding of the issues around complexity, but
there's many a slip, etc.
It may seem to be very easy to agree with you on that point. However, the
On 1/21/13 11:34 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
It may seem to be very easy to agree with you on that point. However,
the story isn't that simple as it first seems to be.
Complex problems often have complex solutions. I think a lot of
people look at sendmail, for example, and go GAH! without
with implementation of the various rfcs I have read I have come up
with
what I consider A modest proposal to fix some of the problems I've
seen
with implementing a rfc. I think anyone who writes a rfc should have
to
provide a working ANSI/C or GNU/C implementation of the rfc in
question.
Specifically, I have
of the various rfcs I have read I have
come up with what I consider A modest proposal to fix some of the
problems I've seen with implementing a rfc. I think anyone who writes
a rfc should have to provide a working ANSI/C or GNU/C implementation
of the rfc in question. Specifically, I have worked
In response to Melinda's first reply, the reason I specifically requested
an implementation in C is because I think its the language that a developer
is the least likely to hang himself with. I've seen plenty of examples of
bad code and I think c gives the least opportunity for a developer to
Another reason I believe a code implementation of a rfc would be good is
understanding. For me, it is sometimes easier to read an example of code
than to try to read through a rfc description of it.
Bill
William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com wrote:
comma where random whitespaces are allowed. Additionally, I can't
understand why each line is terminated with CRLF, why use two
characters when one will do.
It is called NETASCII, and is the norm for text-based protocols.
It is a canonical
I have come up with
what I consider A modest proposal to fix some of the problems I've seen
with implementing a rfc. I think anyone who writes a rfc should have to
provide a working ANSI/C or GNU/C implementation of the rfc in question.
Specifically, I have worked with the SIP rfc (rfc 3261
Do none of you know what the phrase a modest proposal refers to?
Try googling it.
Janet
ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 01/21/2013 11:57:22 PM:
From: William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Date: 01/22/2013 12:01 AM
Subject: A modest proposal
Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
On 1/22/13 8:29 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
Do none of you know what the phrase a modest proposal refers to?
We should kill and eat more internet drafts before they reach one year
of age.
Try googling it.
Janet
ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 01/21/2013 11:57:22 PM:
From: William Jordan
- Original Message -
From: Janet P Gunn jgu...@csc.com
To: William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf-boun...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Do none of you know what the phrase a modest proposal refers to?
Try googling
Do none of you know what the phrase a modest proposal refers to?
No, but I'm sure that this will be a Great Leap Forward.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:57 PM, William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow multiple ways of doing the same
exact thing would hopefully be deterred by actually writing code to do it.
I think a suitable punishment for those people would be to write
On 1/22/13 12:34 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Another example from a different area: Why do we need so many
transition technologies for the migration from IPv4 to IPv6? Wouldn't
it be less complex to just have one transition mechanism?
You mean no transition mechanisms...
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com wrote:
Continuing my discussion about how badly SIP is designed, I'm gonna talk
about the via line. First of all each via line can be expressed as via: OR
v: OR you can have multiple via entries on the same line separated by
On 1/22/13 7:16 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
Microsoft-OS text editors. Seriously. People wanted to be able to
write correct SIP messages using text editors, and there were more
Microsoft users than Linux users on the list.
Oh, c'mon. MS products and MacOS at the time used CRLF for newlines
Additionally, I can't understand why each line is terminated with
CRLF, why use two characters when one will do.
Microsoft-OS text editors. Seriously.
My, what a bunch of parvenus. SIP got it from SMTP, SMTP got it from
Telnet. Back in the 1960s we all used CRLF because on a
mechanical model
On 23/01/2013 04:14, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/22/13 12:34 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Another example from a different area: Why do we need so many
transition technologies for the migration from IPv4 to IPv6? Wouldn't
it be less complex to just have one transition mechanism?
You mean no
I've recent had to write a program to interface with a SIP lync server and
in doing so have had to code to several rfcs. After reading and dealing
with implementation of the various rfcs I have read I have come up with
what I consider A modest proposal to fix some of the problems I've seen
On 1/21/13 7:57 PM, William Jordan wrote:
Whoever thought it was a good idea to
allow multiple ways of doing the same exact thing would hopefully be
deterred by actually writing code to do it.
I think there's general agreement that options are not a good thing and
a pretty decent
On Jan 22, 2013, at 08:05, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
why you're specifically requesting implementations in C
I think his argument is that the spec author should be punished for each piece
of fluff in the spec.
A sentiment that I can relate to.
Having to write C code
On 1/21/13 10:20 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Having to write C code probably does qualify as the appropriate
punishment :-)
I guess that depends on your background ...
And too bad we can't have the IESG implement it while
reviewing it.
There we go. That would cut down on the I'll support
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
And too bad we can't have the IESG implement it while
reviewing it.
There we go. That would cut down on the I'll support your
awful idea if you support my awful idea horse trading.
No, it just means that I have to implement my awful idea and
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps not
the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for each
person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Editorial process will provide some vetting on quality. Use
On 10/22/12 16:25, Steve Crocker allegedly wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps
not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for
each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Editorial
On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps
not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for
each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Editorial
On 22 October 2012 21:25, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps
not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for
each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Dick and Steve,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Dick Franks rwfra...@acm.org wrote:
On 22 October 2012 21:25, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is
perhaps not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a
[ietf-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Steve Crocker
[st...@shinkuro.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:25 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: In Memoriam IETF web page -- a modest proposal
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps not
the first place to focus
a friend suggested privately an article in the ietf journal when someone
has died. this seems a no-brainer. and it is archived.
i will not indulge in the swamp of attempting to codify who writes it
and how. if the ietf journal editor(s) can not be trusted, replace
them. sheesh!
randy
In any case, the IRTF Report, IAB Report and RSOC Report could certainly be
made in the other plenary.
Or omitted entirely, since they are duplicative of data which would be better
communicated in writing.
...and/or use some Internet technology, by producing YouTube report videos,
that people
Oh, I can just see it now: YouTube of plenary with bad-attitute
subtitles
:-)
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo
On Wed,
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
during that time slot.
I was already planning to bring this up again in the IAB, but now that you
mention it
On 8/2/2011 6:35 AM, David Kessens wrote:
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries
and hold meetings during that time slot.
Original Message -
From: David Kessens david.kess...@nsn.com
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:49 PM
Russ,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat
I think John has the issue nailed. I think it would be easy to try to
eliminate the plenaries and then end up with a full Friday, anyway. I would
offer that it would be very difficult, however, to take a compressed Friday and
later add an afternoon to it. Thus, I am much more in favor of a
BTW, has anyone noticed the trend of doing more and more on the Sunday and
Saturday *before* IETF week?
Very much so.
Workshops, joint meetings, design teams...
In Prague, a good number of people started in Friday.
Nothing wrong with that, but it does put paid to the idea that the IETF is 4.5
On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
BTW, has anyone noticed the trend of doing more and more on the Sunday and
Saturday *before* IETF week?
Very much so.
Workshops, joint meetings, design teams...
In Prague, a good number of people started in Friday.
Nothing wrong with
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 08:05, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
OTOH, I have good reason to think that the application of more focus by WGs
during their meetings *could* reduce the pressure on the whole schedule.
Thus,
the perennial thread on not presenting drafts at WG meetings
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 16:38 -0500 Adam Roach
a...@nostrum.com wrote:
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against
this plan. By Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal
schedule. Pushing lunch back by 2 hours would pretty well on
guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and
On 8/1/11 3:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
So I think this is a good idea if it is feasible... even though
my preference would be to go back to ending at noon (or 11:30 or
earlier) on Friday by getting more efficient about how we use
time earlier in the week and more selective about who and
On 01/08/2011, at 2:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
I've noticed that lots of people (myself often included) are
often sufficiently wasted by Friday morning to be largely
disfunctional (certainly less coherent than normal). I'm
prepared to believe that pushing back lunch would make it even
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
On 2011-08-03 05:45, Mark Nottingham wrote:
snip
... Some people will still doubtless complain.
/snip
Could we take this as the conclusion of this discussion?
I'm being serious. Tuning the schedule in the light of feedback
should be a constant concern, amd it will always be a balancing
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, the IRTF Report, IAB Report and RSOC Report could certainly be
made in the other plenary.
Or omitted entirely, since they are duplicative of data which would be better
communicated in writing.
On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Could we take this as the conclusion of this discussion?
+1
I'm being serious. Tuning the schedule in the light of feedback
should be a constant concern, amd it will always be a balancing act
between varying preferences among
On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com
wrote:
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even *was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns
something new
On 8/1/2011 10:08 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even*was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns something
new every day.
But I meant it quite literally: a moderate/humble/etc. proposal for Friday
I'd actually vote for NO meetings on Fridays. %90 of attendees fly home
on Friday if at all possible, especially since most of us have flown in on
Sunday. Unless you are local to the meeting, it is a major hassle leaving
after the meetings on Friday, especially if you are
Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
I really like it, as there are a bunch of post-IETF
-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:40 PM
To: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
Howdy,
First I'd like to thank the organizers for IETF-81 for
another well-run meeting
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
I
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
and could certainly wear a headphone/mike and watch our laptop screens.
Interesting idea...though would
On Aug 1, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
That may work, but it does require that someone be at the meeting venue
while the rest sit in the airport.
Or we could all just meet at the airport. :)
I suspect that one of the many problems with trying to depend on remote
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
and could certainly wear a headphone/mike and watch
On 8/1/11 5:14 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
and could certainly wear a
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat and the IESG. I will
report back to the community as soon as possible.
Russ
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
I really like
Hi All,
Within the IETF, it has become common to use the term a A Modest Proposal...
as a title for actual proposals for process change within the IETF. This
causes some cultural dissonance for me, personally, and I want to make sure
that people are aware of the origin of this term
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
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.orgwrote:
Hi All,
Within the IETF, it has become common to use the term a A Modest
Proposal... as a title for actual proposals for process change within the
IETF. This causes some cultural dissonance for me, personally
, at 12:45 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi All,
Within the IETF, it has become common to use the term a A Modest
Proposal... as a title for actual proposals for process change within the
IETF. This causes some cultural dissonance for me, personally, and I want
to make sure that people
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even *was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns something
new every day.
But I meant it quite literally: a
Russ,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat and the IESG. I will
report back to the community as soon as possible.
I don't think this proposal should be pursued. The breaks fulfil an
important function and there is
of modest proposal
by writing that article. Those with a familiarity of English literature might
see another potential meaning in those words, but the normal meaning still
applies.
Keith
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against this plan. By
Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal schedule. Pushing lunch back by
2 hours would pretty well on guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and
less coherent than normal by the end of Session II.
/a
On 8/1/11 10:10 AM,
Not to mention the strange grammatical usage that you hear in
Britain:
I am stood in front of the office.
We were sat on the runway for 20 minutes
(Something you say about chess pieces I suppose...)
or:
The Bank of England have announced an increase in interest rates
No wonder us
+1 with Adam
- Original Message -
From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 04:38 PM
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out
: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against this plan. By
Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal schedule. Pushing lunch back by
2 hours would pretty well on guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and
less coherent than normal
I greatly prefer the current meeting schedule to one that packs meetings in to
a shorter time period on Friday. As another poster mentioned, I too am tired by
Friday, and I'm unlikely to stay focused through 5 straight hours of meetings,
especially if I'm expected to keep going two hours past
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
during that time slot.
I was already planning to bring this up
On 2011-08-02 11:35, David Kessens wrote:
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
during that time slot.
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 19:02 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
...
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the
plenaries and hold meetings during that time slot.
Margaret,
FWIW, I personally
I'd like to add my voice to those who wouldn't like the proposed
compressed Friday schedule.
However, I do think there are things we could try to tweak the
schedule. For example, perhaps on one or two days, we could split
the morning slot into two slots of 1:10 with a ten-minute break.
Many
Howdy,
First I'd like to thank the organizers for IETF-81 for another well-run
meeting. The logistics and coordination for such an event must be daunting,
and I know we (the attendees) tend to focus on the negatives rather than the
positives... but we really are thankful for all the time and
I don't think I have seen a proposal like this before. I really like it, as
there are a bunch of post-IETF stuff, some of which starts in the afternoon and
thus conflicts with the IETF. This fixes that problem, enables us to have the
same amount of meeting time, and potentially lets people get
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
