Bravo!
--
Jim Gettys
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 21:22 15-02-00 , Tim Salo wrote:
>The original poster may, in a very real sense, actually be representing a
>company, whether the IETF wants to believe it or not.
>
>Of course, that leads to the rather interesting dilemma that we don't know
>whether an individual is speaking on behalf or his or
At 03:37 15-02-00 , Vernon Schryver wrote:
>Could Civil Service employees find it hard to get travel requests approved
>for attending meetings of an outfit that gets carried away in its rules
>and regulations on who can talk to whom?
No. Been there, done that. Lots of pain being part of the US
At 10:55 AM 2/16/2000 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>Given airline load factors, I don't seem to be able to qualify for discounts
>on my trips to San Francisco from New Jersey -- which means that my
>tickets to
>Adelaide are only very slightly more expensive.
only San Francisco? I thought th
> It is not the case that few WGs are holding meetings. The published agenda
> just isn't complete yet; it never is at this stage.
This is very true. Looking at the Internet Area, I expect all but one
of the WGs that normally have face-to-face meetings to meet in
Adelaide. Plus, there are three p
> -Original Message-
> From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Probably worse than nothing, unless there are much better
> translators than babelfish out there. WG discussions get
> down to really niggly points; a translator that doesn't
> work *perfectly* is likely to make thin
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Crowcroft writes:
> note also, that provided the IETF doesnt start mimicing ITU in
> choosing
> meeting location, a lot of places outside the US offset travel costs
> by cheaper accomodation costs.significantly in some cases
> (i admit london england is not
It is not the case that few WGs are holding meetings. The published agenda
just isn't complete yet; it never is at this stage.
Brian
Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> At 01:30 PM 2/15/00 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> >The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so
> >few working
Austin Schutz wrote:
> It wouuld be possible to have all the mailing lists redistributed
> using some babelfish-like mechanism for translation, though obviously that
> wouldn't cover all languages and wouldn't do any well. Maybe better than
> nothing.
Probably worse than nothing, unless
to people that think that the internet is mostly US centric, and will
go on being so, and that this is relevant to the IETF anyhow -
wrong, wrong, and also wrong!
um the Internet is now mostly commercial - the Eu and Asia each have MORE
money than the US, and also have growth economies. if you
At 01:30 PM 2/15/00 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so
>few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip.
I'd like to offer a personal observation. Yes, the working group sessions
are useful but, for me, the mo
At 12:20 PM 2/15/00 -0600, Mart Nurmet wrote:
>Keith:
>
>How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the
>year?
If you go to the IETF web site, click on "Meetings", and click on "list of
future meetings", you will find a pointer the file
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mt
At 09:44 PM 2/15/00 -0800, Ian King wrote:
>To those of you outside the US who don't think there are enough meetings
>outside the US: IF YOU SPONSOR THEM, WE WILL COME. I've seen the open,
>standing invitations to sponsor meetings -- so step up and sponsor.
for the record, we have quite a few
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:38:49 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> So, all the future IETF meetings should be held in areas far away
> from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language.
"My hovercraft is full of eels" -- J. Cleese
- Original Message -
From: "Vernon Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not
> an international organization. Despite its posturing, the IETF is a U.S.
> or perhaps North American organization that welcomes non-U.S. participant
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd:
> The primary concern in the IETF is producing good protocols.
I believe that the IETF model -- for better or for worse -- is a
good thing for developing countries, compared to a membership
organization like ISOC. Having said, it does not mean that
organizational improve
ent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Jeffry;
IETF is certainly US and English centric.
The current rules of IETF does not explicitely prefer some country
so much, though many important organ
> Moreover, English centric IETF meetings are hard to be actively
> attended by people whose primary language is not English. Compared
> to other International organizations, IETF requires too much in
> English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is
> nothing.
It wouuld be
rim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:51:44 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Why does the IETF registration form ask for a company name?
>
>> > Fro
--On Tuesday, 15 February, 2000 15:22 -0600 Tim Salo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, that leads to the rather interesting dilemma that
> we don't know whether an individual is speaking on behalf or
> his or her self or on behalf of an organization, (again, even
> if we tell that person t
I think that, believing that the world is no bigger than America is a common
problem among many US citizens. No offense, so would I if I lived in US,
because after all there is quite a few states and cities to keep track of.
But my point is that we, including the Americans, speak so proudly of the
Jeffry;
IETF is certainly US and English centric.
The current rules of IETF does not explicitely prefer some country
so much, though many important organizations have addresses in US
and English is the language of the rules. However, the rules keep
or amplify the US centric tendency, because a l
I think that, believing that the world is no bigger than America is a common
problem among many US citizens. No offense, so would I if I lived in US,
because after all there is quite a few states and cities to keep track of.
But my point is that we, including the Americans, speak so proudly of the
Why does the IETF registration form ask for a company name?
> > From: Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mart Nurmet)
> > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800
> From: Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mart Nurmet)
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800 (PST)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> and note that the IETF is composed of i
% Keith:
%
% How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the
% year?
%
% I'm new to this forum and will be the Inet Technologies representative in
% the future.
%
% Best regards,
% Mart Nurmet
% 972 543-3791
I'm not keith but can answer your question.
www.i
The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so
few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip.
This would be true for a meeting at any location more than 400 miles
away. If only one group that I am interested in is holding a session,
I can't go. The p
Keith:
How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the
year?
I'm new to this forum and will be the Inet Technologies representative in
the future.
Best regards,
Mart Nurmet
972 543-3791
rom: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:21 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
>>
>>
>>Graham Klyne wrote:
>>
>>> But I am still uncomfortable wi
Vern,
The IETF has no dependency of any kind on any government and as you yourself
observed it does its decision taking in cyberspace, not geographical space.
It is as international as any organization I have ever known, and I spent more
20 years working for an international treaty organisation.
> From: Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not
> >an international organization. ...
> As a non-US IETF participant, I found this statement mildly insulting. But
> then I have to ask myself "why?". It is true that a majorit
Hi Keith!
Your message and actions are right on In addition to the reasons
and consequences you mentioned, such behavior opens the IETF to
restraint of trade challenges at least in the U.S.
Thanks,
Kathy Dally
MITRE Corp.
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> It has come to the attention of the Applic
John Stracke wrote:
>In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to
>be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the
>IETF more truly global.
Definately!
/ikh
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:44:23 GMT, "Parkinson, Jonathan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> There is more than America out there ?
There's a lot more out there. It's to make up for the fact that in reality,
Idaho, Wyoming, and Rhode Island don't really exist - anybody claiming to
be from one of these
There is more than America out there ?
;-)
-Original Message-
From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Graham Klyne wrote:
> But I am still uncomforta
Graham Klyne wrote:
> But I am still uncomfortable with it. It implies that, somehow, any non-US
> participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend
> purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is. Maybe
> that also is true -- but I don't have to like
From: Keith McCloghrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:34:38 -0800 (PST)
> Let's see, how many RFC's are not in English? How many WG meetings
> or mailinglists?
>
> That the IETF is de facto an U.S. outfit is not by itself a bad thing.
You seem to be making t
At 05:45 PM 2/14/00 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not
>an international organization. Despite its posturing, the IETF is a U.S.
>or perhaps North American organization that welcomes non-U.S. participants
>and occasionally spends
well said!
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 3:37 PM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
>
>
> It has come to the attention of the Applications A
> Let's see, how many RFC's are not in English? How many WG meetings
> or mailinglists?
>
> That the IETF is de facto an U.S. outfit is not by itself a bad thing.
You seem to be making the assumption that the English language is the
property of the USA. Perhaps, you have forgotten that the Eng
> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it might conflict with the U.S.
> > Constitution's provisions concerning freedom of assembly.
>
> (a) The U.S. constitution applies to the Federal government (and sometimes to
> the state government
At 05:45 PM 2/14/00 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>Unless you going
>to slide the IETF the rest of the way into the ITU/IEEE/ANSI swamp, won't
>the mailing lists continue to be the only official forums for the working
>groups? Won't the working group meetings continue to be effectively
>informal,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vernon Schryver writes
:
> I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it might conflict with the U.S.
> Constitution's provisions concerning freedom of assembly.
(a) The U.S. constitution applies to the Federal government (and sometimes to
the state governments); it
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> RFC 2418 states:
>
>Interim meetings are subject to the
>same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation,
>and process, which apply to other working group meetings.
> ...
> - This applies to all face to face meetings
It has come to the attention of the Applications Area Directors
that one or more Applications area working groups have elected
to not meet in Adelaide, and instead to hold an "interim meeting"
in the United States, presumably because of distance and/or cost issues.
IETF is an international organi
45 matches
Mail list logo
