A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7202
Title: Securing the RTP Framework: Why
RTP Does Not Mandate a Single
Media Security Solution
Author: C. Perkins, M. Westerlund
On 17/09/2013 17:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi John,
At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't
want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them),
things are getting to the point that it takes far too much
energy
Hi John,
At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't
want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them),
things are getting to the point that it takes far too much
energy to actually figure out what the rules are. Perhaps
Begin forwarded message:
From: Srinivasan Keshav kes...@uwaterloo.ca
Subject: [e2e] Why do we need congestion control?
Date: March 5, 2013 15:04:48 GMT+01:00
To: end2end-inter...@postel.org end2end-inter...@postel.org
To answer this question, I put together some slides for a presentation
does not.
Why are there two different agenda web pages? Why not have only the
tools.ietf.org web pages, and have the main agenda web page link to those
pages instead?
Ross.
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF
ought to have an antitrust policy.
I would be interested in a brief explanation of why we need one now,
since we have gotten along without one for multiple decades.
Having worked with a lot of lawyers, my experience is that few
in a brief explanation of why we need one now,
since we have gotten along without one for multiple decades.
Having worked with a lot of lawyers, my experience is that few lawyers
understand cost-benefit tradeoffs, and often recommend spending
unreasonably large amounts of money to defend against very
On 11/28/2011 12:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
I would be interested in a brief explanation of why we need one now,
since we have gotten along without one for multiple decades.
Having worked with a lot of lawyers, my experience is that few lawyers
understand cost-benefit tradeoffs, and often
the rest of us, looking at the Discuss generally feel that it was clear and
substantive and even important?
* Does the Discuss obviously align with the criteria for a Discuss?
* Does the AD who held the Discuss now feel that it was productive, and why?
* Do the authors and chairs now
I don't have too much to say on whether the IESG is effective. Our
standards production rate and the market uptake of same seems to speak
for itself. I also don't have the numbers Dave is looking for either.
However, I would like to contribute my own anecdotal experience,
involving at least one
On 7/28/2011 7:54 PM, SM wrote:
At 04:24 PM 7/28/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, no. By definition, it's correct until we update RFC 2026.
Quoting the Status of this memo section from RFC 6305, RFC 6308, RFC 6319 and
RFC 6331 which are Informational and from the IETF Stream:
This
SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 04:24 PM 7/28/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-07-28 18:45, SM wrote:
At 04:13 PM 7/27/2011, Martin Rex wrote:
According to rfc2026:
4.2.2 Informational
An Informational specification is published for the general
information of the
Hi Martin,
At 04:13 PM 7/27/2011, Martin Rex wrote:
According to rfc2026:
4.2.2 Informational
An Informational specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. [...]
The
and demonstrate that we are deriving the requisite benefit. Try
to explore real-world behaviors, rather than theoretical hopes.
Why? My guess is that it's because that the buck stops with the IESG - and
Except that it doesn't stop with the IESG. (Actually, I don't really know what
it means
off soapbox,
W
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review
I think the IESG, or its various delegates, do need to review everything,
especially keeping in mind that review doesn't have to be some big
heavyweight thing each time. I share the same view as others that sometimes
some really broken stuff manages to get up to that level.
And, although it
+1
On 7/28/2011 11:22 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
...
While not all ADs read all drafts, most read a large fraction of them
(and read them carefully and thoughtfully enough to catch a number of
large issues (and nits) *that were not caught in LC*) -- I think that
they deserve recognition for
themselves.
And why do they do that? Because they aren't going to take the
responsibility for approving a document that they haven't read. Nobody
would, I hope.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 2011-07-28 18:45, SM wrote:
Hi Martin,
At 04:13 PM 7/27/2011, Martin Rex wrote:
According to rfc2026:
4.2.2 Informational
An Informational specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community
Hi Brian,
At 04:24 PM 7/28/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, no. By definition, it's correct until we update RFC 2026.
Quoting the Status of this memo section from RFC 6305, RFC 6308, RFC
6319 and RFC 6331 which are Informational and from the IETF Stream:
This document is a product of
of AD behavior and responsibility. I can't guess
how you can misunderstand the difference.
And why do they do that? Because they aren't going to take the
responsibility for approving a document that they haven't read. Nobody
would, I hope.
Therein lies a core problem with the model
on the responsibility that most ADs feel when
ballotting on a draft. I'm sure there is a significant variety of
personal algorithms by which ADs operate.
And why do they do that? Because they aren't going to take the
responsibility for approving a document that they haven't read. Nobody
would, I hope
Dear colleagues,
This is not to pick on Murray, who was not making the point I am
trying to draw out of his remarks. Sorry, Murray.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 08:45:41AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
the process. So perhaps what's needed is an optional document state
prior to Publication
is a fundamentally different model of AD behavior and
responsibility. I can't guess how you can misunderstand the difference.
And why do they do that? Because they aren't going to take the
responsibility for approving a document that they haven't read. Nobody
would, I hope.
Therein lies a core problem
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams
these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert
the ADs
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
Brian,
I've been repeatedly hearing from IESG folk for some year -- and seeing reports
relating to Nomcom -- that, in fact, ADs are expected (and maybe required) to
read
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
I can understand the resource contention when reading drafts
brought to the IESG. I would not expect
On 2011-07-28 11:13, Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
I can understand the resource contention when reading drafts
On 2011-07-28 10:34, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
Brian,
I've been repeatedly hearing from IESG folk for some year -- and seeing
reports relating to Nomcom -- that, in fact, ADs
is difficult.
My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs treated you in
an unfair way.
Ciao
Hannes
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
this is pretty rare in IESG discussions,
compared to the blatant company position-pushing I have often seen in
WG discussions. But again, they are human. That's why part of the NomCom's
job is balancing the membership as much as possible.
misjudge their expertise in a certain area,
I didn't say
I believe we agree.
On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs treated you
in an unfair way.
Absolutely agreed. The NomCom needs an overview of this.
___
Ietf mailing
Likewise...
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:25 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Why the IESG needs to review everything...
I believe we agree
On 24 Jun 2011, at 16:54, Keith Moore wrote:
But one of the important attributes of consensus, one of the things that
makes it so powerful, is that ideally, it's visible to everyone. Take the
example where a bunch of people in a room are asked a question and asked to
raise hands to
+1
--On Saturday, 25 June, 2011 04:18 + Christian Huitema
huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
It seems that we have wide consensus to publish the advisory
document, not so much for the 6to4 historic part. Can we
just publish the advisory and be done with this thread?
On Jun 26, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message b91bb6cd-656f-4935-b513-a6225c8f3...@bogus.com, Joel Jaeggli writ
es:
On Jun 25, 2011, at 5:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Not so odd. There are hundreds of millions of hosts out there that attempt
to use 6to4 by default, and
In message 3d67bad3-45c1-47ac-bf42-9cefa7c4a...@bogus.com, Joel Jaeggli write
s:
On Jun 26, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message b91bb6cd-656f-4935-b513-a6225c8f3...@bogus.com, Joel =
Jaeggli writ
es:
On Jun 25, 2011, at 5:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Not so odd.
those arguments up-front, so if there's any objection voiced
at IETF LC, it's bound to be new material. The re-hashing of the same
arguments made in the WG during IETF LC seems like a waste of time to me
unless there are new details available.
Sometimes it does help if the WG explains why
In message b91bb6cd-656f-4935-b513-a6225c8f3...@bogus.com, Joel Jaeggli writ
es:
On Jun 25, 2011, at 5:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-06-25 13:38, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: james woodyatt j...@apple.com
I supported 6to4-advisory and strenuously argued against taking up
Hi Paul,
At 15:36 23-06-2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
For those on the ietf@ mailing list, please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ballot/.
In short, the IESG just approved publication of
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, even with what appears to be a
lack
On 2011-06-25 13:38, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: james woodyatt j...@apple.com
I supported 6to4-advisory and strenuously argued against taking up
6to4-to-historic.
...
I can see how 6to4-to-historic may divert its intended audience from
reading the much more
SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Assuming that there was rough consensus (I agree with you that it was
not rough at all), the document would still not satisfy the following
statement:
It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 16:10 -0700 james woodyatt
j...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:08 , John C Klensin wrote:
What I saw was what appeared to me to be some fairly strong
arguments for looking at the problem in a different way -- a
way that I've seen no evidence the WG
instead for a very good reason
(below) - but even if this reason was not in his mind, it still seems to me
the best argument why rough consensus is the right standard to apply instead
of 'significant majority', in what is basically a 'herding cats'
organization. When you have a _significant_ minority
At 06:16 25-06-2011, John Leslie wrote:
I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a statement;
and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents
gives any assurance of consensus of the IETF community.
It doesn't.
The IANA Considerations section raises
On Jun 25, 2011, at 5:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-06-25 13:38, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: james woodyatt j...@apple.com
I supported 6to4-advisory and strenuously argued against taking up
6to4-to-historic.
...
I can see how 6to4-to-historic may divert its intended audience from
On Jun 24, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I've been reviewing the WGLC comments. I haven't finished doing so yet,
but so far my impression is that the discussion was both thorough and
well-organized.
You might want to go further back
On 6/25/11 8:16 AM, John Leslie wrote:
I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a statement;
and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents
gives any assurance of consensus of the IETF community.
I believe the IESG concluded that, although the
On Jun 25, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/25/11 8:16 AM, John Leslie wrote:
I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a statement;
and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents
gives any assurance of consensus of the IETF community.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 10:05 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:36:13AM -0700, Murray S
26.06.2011 0:15, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/25/11 8:16 AM, John Leslie wrote:
I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a
statement;
and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents
gives any assurance of consensus of the IETF community.
From RFC 5741,
the chairs.
For a document such as this, why even ask for IETF consensus if the IETF
consensus doesn't matter? There was a lot of good discussion and a fair number
of varied objections to approval of the document. It sounds like the WG was
strongly in favor of the document, which may be sufficient
Basically, I approached this the way Peter did. One further
point below though.
On 24/06/11 02:15, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Said a different way, what needs to happen in IETF Last Call to overcome we
already discussed this in the WG (which was the majority of the positive
comments in this case)?
On Jun 23, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/23/11 4:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. The subject line is an honest question, not a
gripe.
For those on the ietf@ mailing list, please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ballot/.
On Jun 24, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Basically, I approached this the way Peter did. One further
point below though.
On 24/06/11 02:15, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Said a different way, what needs to happen in IETF Last Call to overcome we
already discussed this in the WG (which
for a
document was the same as we saw on ietf@ for this document, and the WG chair declared consensus
anyway, there would be some serious talks with that WG AD about the chairs.
For a document such as this, why even ask for IETF consensus if the IETF
consensus doesn't matter? There was a lot
Keith,
On 2011-06-24 23:47, Keith Moore wrote:
...
1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of the
whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents only one
side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately chartered in such
a way as
(Wearing my Narrative-Scribe hat)
First, note the Subject line: an IETF Last-Call on a Working Group
document _isn't_ asking for IETF Consensus: it's simply a last-call for
comments on an action proposed by a Working Group.
Second, I think the Narrative Minutes will help considerably in
On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Keith,
On 2011-06-24 23:47, Keith Moore wrote:
...
1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of the
whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents only one
side of a tussle, and working
On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:55 AM, John Leslie wrote:
(Wearing my Narrative-Scribe hat)
First, note the Subject line: an IETF Last-Call on a Working Group
document _isn't_ asking for IETF Consensus: it's simply a last-call for
comments on an action proposed by a Working Group.
Second, I
On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't
see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being
raised at the IETF LC. I think that such things are perhaps
more likely to cause the IETF rough consensus to differ
On Jun 24, 2011, at 5:55 AM, John Leslie wrote:
(Wearing my Narrative-Scribe hat)
First, note the Subject line: an IETF Last-Call on a Working Group
document _isn't_ asking for IETF Consensus: it's simply a last-call for
comments on an action proposed by a Working Group.
I'm quite
On 24/06/11 15:17, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't
see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being
raised at the IETF LC. I think that such things are perhaps
more likely to
An IETF consensus call is judgement as to rough consensus. There is no
mechanical set of rules that can substitute for judgement.
WG Chairs judge the consensus of the Working Group. It is reasonable
for them to take into account discussions at WG meetings as well as WG
mailing list discussions.
Earlier, Paul Hoffman wrote, in part:
...the IESG just approved publication of X, even with
what appears to be a lack of consensus in the comments
on the ietf@ mailing list.
(some other text elided here.)
For a document such as this, why even ask for IETF consensus
if the IETF consensus
On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 24/06/11 15:17, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't
see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being
raised at the IETF LC.
to wonder why there's
been so much effort to push through a document for which consensus is dubious
at best.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
chair over-reaching.
I hear that Paul H is unhappy with this particular outcome,
...which means that you did not read the messages I sent. I explicitly said I
didn't care about this one, which is why I didn't say anything during the Last
Call.
but there is no evidence of any kind of process
On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:21 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Earlier, Paul Hoffman wrote, in part:
...the IESG just approved publication of X, even with
what appears to be a lack of consensus in the comments
on the ietf@ mailing list.
(some other text elided here.)
For a document such as this, why
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 13:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think that's about right. There were several strong and very
raional opinions against this, including some who were not
involved in the similarly rough consensus in the WG
discussion. But
On 24 Jun 2011, at 11:50 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
And you have now listed so many variables, it begs the question:
Paul,
I disagree that it begs that question.
The IETF processes have always been open to ALL inputs from whatever
source, in all parts of its processes. You write that text
of the inputs that the IESG
receives about a document or issue that is put to IETF
Last Call.
IETF Consensus precludes ignoring procedural issues and
in-scope technical issues. Otherwise it is IESG consensus
at best.
Why was there no serious consideration to downgrade 6to4 to
experimental
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 4:48 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Paul Hoffman; The IESG
Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
It's
On Jun 24, 2011, at 12:18 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Consensus in the IETF has NEVER been a numbers game,
counting merely the public postings. The IETF doesn't vote.
Just counting the numbers of public postings would be voting,
and this organisation has made a quite explicit decision
NOT to
On Jun 24, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 4:48 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Paul Hoffman; The IESG
Subject: Re: Why
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:36:13AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
By contrast, working groups tend to contain more expertise than may
be available in an IETF LC; that's partly why they're formed. I've
never been an AD before, but I imagine I might consider the WG
consensus to be at least
On 06/24/2011 06:46 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
If polls at area meetings with 100+ people at them at three successive
IETF meetings on different continents consistently show, say, a 3 to 1
preference for some proposal but the IETF Last call email has 6 people
speaking against and only 4 in
Hi Melinda,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/24/2011 06:46 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
If polls at area meetings with 100+ people at them at three successive
IETF meetings on different continents consistently show, say, a 3 to 1
preference
Donald Eastlake wrote:
If polls at area meetings with 100+ people at them at three successive
IETF meetings on different continents consistently show, say, a 3 to 1
preference for some proposal but the IETF Last call email has 6 people
speaking against and only 4 in favor, what do you think
On 2011-06-24 20:27, Martin Rex wrote:
...
Yes, I know that this is currently not easy for the one doing
the write-up. Maybe this could be simplified by the IETF Mailing
List exploder to _first_ put a message in the mailing list archive,
obtain a URL into the archive for it and then send out
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this
list (ietf@ietf.org) because it is very noisy and operators have
other priorities.
Ah, operators. This would be the same group of people of whom, if the
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-24 20:27, Martin Rex wrote:
...
Yes, I know that this is currently not easy for the one doing
the write-up. Maybe this could be simplified by the IETF Mailing
List exploder to _first_ put a message in the mailing list archive,
obtain a URL into the
On 2011-06-24 20:55, Martin Rex wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-24 20:27, Martin Rex wrote:
...
Yes, I know that this is currently not easy for the one doing
the write-up. Maybe this could be simplified by the IETF Mailing
List exploder to _first_ put a message in the mailing list
Hi Martin,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Donald Eastlake wrote:
If polls at area meetings with 100+ people at them at three successive
IETF meetings on different continents consistently show, say, a 3 to 1
preference for some proposal but the IETF Last call
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this
list (ietf@ietf.org) because it is very noisy and operators have
other
On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Which operator is not actively working on IPv6 projects *right now*?
Seriously, that old statement does not hold water today.
Perhaps you missed the one data point thread from a few days ago. It appears
that a great many ISPs aren't working
On 06/24/2011 09:08, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 13:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think that's about right. There were several strong and very
raional opinions against this, including some who were not
involved in the similarly
On 06/24/2011 04:35, Keith Moore wrote:
I often get the impression that dissenters are dismissed as in the rough and
that their opinions, no matter how well expressed, are given less weight than those who
are in favor.
One could also consider the idea that due to the very human tendency
On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
By your document above are you referring to Brian's
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory ? If so I would
argue that the extensive WG discussion about both documents meets your
criteria. Taken together the 2 documents
On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/24/2011 04:35, Keith Moore wrote:
I often get the impression that dissenters are dismissed as in the rough
and that their opinions, no matter how well expressed, are given less weight
than those who are in favor.
One could also
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 5:55 AM, John Leslie wrote:
First, note the Subject line: an IETF Last-Call on a Working Group
document _isn't_ asking for IETF Consensus: it's simply a last-call for
comments on an action proposed by a Working Group.
I'm quite
On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:17 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 5:55 AM, John Leslie wrote:
First, note the Subject line: an IETF Last-Call on a Working Group
document _isn't_ asking for IETF Consensus: it's simply a last-call for
comments on
. Taken together the 2 documents represent a series
of compromises between those of us whose opinion is Kill 6to4 dead,
yesterday and those who would like to give it as graceful an exit as
possible.
Taken together, the message is confusing.
I'm not sure why you would think that. It fits
On 06/24/2011 13:14, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/24/2011 04:35, Keith Moore wrote:
I often get the impression that dissenters are dismissed as in the
rough and that their opinions, no matter how well expressed, are
given less weight than those who
On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I've been reviewing the WGLC comments. I haven't finished doing so yet,
but so far my impression is that the discussion was both thorough and
well-organized.
You might want to go further back in the archives than just the LC. There was
quite
., as well the WG and the community input
disagreed, so screw the community.
Personally, I don't believe that was the basis on which the IESG
made the decisions they made but, as is often the case in this
community, a little more explicitness and transparency about how
and why controversial decisions
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 16:17 -0400 John Leslie
j...@jlc.net wrote:
and which are just to bring additional input to the IESG for a
non-consensus decision?
Clearly, RFC 2026 does not require any kind of consensus
for Informational documents.
...
John,
A small nit... While in this
On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:08 , John C Klensin wrote:
What I saw was what appeared to me to be some fairly strong
arguments for looking at the problem in a different way -- a way
that I've seen no evidence the WG considered at all. That
would be to explore alternatives to the rather blunt
On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:10 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
I see that some of those in the opposition to 6to4-to-historic do not agree
with me that the draft is utterly harmless and will be roundly ignored by
industry.
I think the effect of declaring something Historic is difficult to predict, and
On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:10 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
I see that some of those in the opposition to 6to4-to-historic do not agree
with me that the draft is utterly harmless and will be roundly ignored by
industry.
Were it completely harmless
1 - 100 of 941 matches
Mail list logo
