On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 04:17:24PM -0800,
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 92 lines which said:
Either all submissions are rejected due to load or none.
I disagree. Even with good and honest engineers, there are enough
people in the world to overload the IESG. But
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:46:30AM -0800,
Mohsen BANAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
In general, I consider the garbage that IESG puts in non-IETF RFCs
as a badge of honor for the author.
For example, the negative IESG note in the original HTTP specs and
the
Title: Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)
The comments on http are rather amusing when you consider we spent the next five years trying to act on them.
At the time the CERN connection to the internet was a T1. Everyone including Tim
...
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The comments on http are rather amusing when you consider we spent the next
five years trying to act on them.
At the time the CERN connection to the internet was a T1.
Er, the CERN connection to the NSFnet was a T1, or possibly an E1 by then.
CERN had much
...
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The comments on http are rather amusing when you consider we spent the next
five years trying to act on them.
At the time the CERN connection to the internet was a T1.
Er, the CERN connection to the NSFnet was a T1, or possibly an E1 by then.
CERN
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:56:57 +0100, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Harald Mohsen BANAN wrote:
Complaints Against The IESG
and The RFC-Editor
About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)
Harald The IESG pointed some of the issues out to the RFC Editor, who handled
Harald the
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:56:57 +0100, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:10:10 -0800, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Harald What's the point of reposting this message now?
Dave Seems like there ought to be a statute of limitations.
In response to both
On Sun Mar 19 09:46:30 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
For example, the negative IESG note in the
original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
relevance.
For the crowd watching who were curious, but not curious enough to
bother looking, RFC1945
Harald The IESG pointed some of the issues out to the RFC Editor, who handled
Harald the communication with the author; that was the procedure at that
time.
Harald Nevertheless, the RFC Editor felt that the document was worthy of
Harald publication, and published anyway.
As the written
I too agree with Mohsen's comments, overall. What Mohsen points out as true
eight years ago continues to be true even now. Not a lot changed, IMHO. I
believe, it had gotten worse. IESG continues to wield enormous influence over
the independent submissions sent to the RFC editor. The RFC editor
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:42:50 -0800 (PST), Pyda Srisuresh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too agree with Mohsen's comments, overall. What Mohsen points out as true
eight years ago continues to be true even now. Not a lot changed, IMHO. I
believe, it had gotten worse. IESG continues to wield enormous
Right, that is the foced outcome of the current practice. Without an
independent channel, people find other avenues outside the IETF to get their
work done.
regards,
suresh
--- Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:42:50 -0800 (PST), Pyda Srisuresh
[EMAIL
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:17:13 -0800 (PST), Pyda Srisuresh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, that is the foced outcome of the current practice. Without an
independent channel, people find other avenues outside the IETF to get their
work done.
More precisely, to publish their work. My question
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:23:45 +, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Dave On Sun Mar 19 09:46:30 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
For example, the negative IESG note in the
original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
relevance.
Dave
Dave RFC2068, HTTP/1.1, was published a little over half a year later,
Dave which would appear to be relatively soon.
The primary author of Informational RFC1945 with
the negative IESG note is Tim Berners-Lee.
He then pulled out of the IETF/IESG and formed
W3C.
Why do you think that
Keith,
You have totally confused ESRO with EMSD.
RFC-2188 is different from RFC-2524.
1) RFC-2188 (ESRO)
As far as I know the RFC-2188 complaint had
nothing to do with you. Everything is fully
documented. We are talking about historic facts,
not opinions. IESG did not object to
Dave Crocker wrote:
This was eight years ago. The IESG that the complaint was made against
was:
Seems like there ought to be a statute of limitations.
In the IETF process, that's two months. I presume that anybody who
found the RFC 3932 (BCP 92) procedures unsatisfactory would have
You have totally confused ESRO with EMSD.
RFC-2188 is different from RFC-2524.
I stand corrected.
Tony gets it:
Tony The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those
who
Tony would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios,
MUST
Tony NOT
On Sun Mar 19 20:59:46 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
The only part of the IESG note that can be
considered to have any aspect of legitimacy is:
I say again, I examined RFC2524 is some detail, both because it was
prior art in an area that was under heavy discussion at the time in
Lemonade,
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the reviewer.
It seems to me that while many
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
If they were popular projects pulling useful input away from the IETF
and Lemonade respectively, I'd classify that as harm.
Why? Harm to who and in what way?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the reviewer.
It seems to me that while
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the
It's not at all clear to me that we can afford the resources to give the
privilege of appeal to mere individuals.
Excuse me? What do you think IETF is or do you really prefer to see it
officially turn into IVTF?
IETF is, or should be, an engineering organization. Not a vanity press.
IETF
At 02:44 20/03/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
It's not at all clear to me that we can afford the resources to
give the privilege of appeal to mere individuals.
Excuse me? What do you think IETF is or do you really prefer to see
it officially turn into IVTF?
IETF is, or should be, an engineering
[ This is a repost from 6 Nov 1998.
In particular the section on:
o Separate The RFC Publication Service from the IETF/IESG/IAB.
is relevant to the current:
STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
thread. ]
Complaints Against The IESG
and The
Mohsen BANAN wrote:
Complaints Against The IESG
and The RFC-Editor
About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)
Mohsen Banan
mohsen at neda.com
November 5, 1998
I suppose I should make a note to
This was eight years ago. The IESG that the complaint was made against was:
Seems like there ought to be a statute of limitations.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
http://bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
28 matches
Mail list logo
