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 example RFC
Joe Touch wrote:
Hi,
RFC2765 specifies that translators can merely copy the
low-order bits of the field.
Yes, but this is not compatible with RFC791.
Then, which should we revice? RFC791, RFC2765 or both?
2765.
Is it a consensus of IETF?
Note that it also imply revising RFC2460,
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
I support that IETF and IAB chairs sign this document.
Bert
- Original Message -
From: IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org
To: IETF-Announce ietf-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: IAB i...@iab.org; IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:19 PM
Subject: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
+1
AB
On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found
here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf
An earlier version was
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
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
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 weeks,
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
Dave,
On 12/08/2012 17:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process
because this is such a wonderful cause'.
It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing
rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or
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
For your information the IUSG (interested in the Intelligent Use of
the whole digital ecosystem) has just released the following statement
which reflect a friendly but non-IETF evaluation of the Modern Global
Standards Paradigm document proposed by the IETF and IAB Chairs to
the endorsement of
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 runs
For those utterly mystified by the recent message under the above subject
header, let me note that my spam folder earlier today included a rather
incomprehensible message from JFC Morfin. I'm about to add jean-michel
bernier de portzamparc to my spam filters too, of course.
Alternatively, you
[BA] The reply below represents my personal opinion.
Dave Crocker said:
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
Dear Mr. Carpenter,
I do not understand this.
Would you want to examplify the ITU supposed good manners?
I am lost.
Portzamparc
2012/8/12 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com:
For those utterly mystified by the recent message under the above subject
header, let me note that my spam
jean-michel == jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jma...@gmail.com
writes:
jean-michel Dear Mr. Carpenter,
jean-michel I do not understand this.
jean-michel Would you want to examplify the ITU supposed good manners?
jean-michel I am lost.
So am I.
You process to represent open
On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com 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
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 UN
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
2012/8/12 Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
jean-michel == jean-michel bernier de portzamparc
jma...@gmail.com writes:
jean-michel Dear Mr. Carpenter,
jean-michel I do not understand this.
jean-michel Would you want to examplify the ITU supposed good manners?
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 we
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
On Aug 13, 2012, at 04:58, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com 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
The IAB is working on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations 'Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols'; in order to better understand the
implementation status of IPv6 privacy mechanisms in operating system stacks,
those familiar with OS IPv6 implementations are asked to
The IAB has issued an IETF-wide Call for Comment on
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-dns-applications Architectural
Considerations on Application Features in the DNS. The document is being
considered for publication as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream.
The Call for Comment will last
The IAB has approved publication of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc3356bis IETF and ITU-T
Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines as an Informational RFC in
the IAB Stream. ITU-T TSAG
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2012-07-31-itu-t-tsa
The IAB has approved publication of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs Design Considerations
for Protocol Extensions as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream.
The IAB has appointed Ole Jacobsen
http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Ole_Jacobsen as the IETF representative to
the 2013 ICANN Nomcom http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom .
Random selection of the voting members for this year's NomCom is now
complete. The following individuals were selected using the previously
published seeds and the algorithm from RFC 3797: (Details of random
selection can be found at the bottom of this message)
090 Michael Richardson, Sandelman
30 matches
Mail list logo
