[Fwd: RMONMIB WG interim meeting announcement]

2000-04-06 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, The RMONMIB WG intends to hold an interim meeting to work on all aspects of the new charter. This includes: - Application Performance Monitoring (APM) - Transport Performance Metrics (TPM) - User-Defined TopN Monitoring MIB (UsrTopN) - DIFFSERV Monitoring MIB (DS-MON) Meeting

Splitting the IETF list

2001-11-17 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, I would like the IESG to consider splitting this list into 2 lists. One list for discussion of Last Call issues and another for everything else (including minor stuff like splitting the IETF-Announce or IETF lists :-) thanks, Andy

Re: Splitting the IETF list

2001-11-19 Thread Andy Bierman
and if they keep doing it, they will be blocked from posting. Andy [Splitting the -announce list doesn't have this disadvantage.] Brian Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, I would like the IESG to consider splitting this list into 2 lists. One list for discussion of Last Call issues and another

Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday

2003-03-15 Thread Andy Bierman
At 03:20 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, Melinda Shore wrote: My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 50% - the same people would come, I think. Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about others' we whould expect slightly lower

Re: Where can I find capwap BOF Agenda ?

2003-07-03 Thread Andy Bierman
At 05:44 PM 7/1/2003, Soohong Daniel Park wrote: Hi all I am searching for capwap Agenda http://www.ietf.org/ietf/03jul/capwap.txt Friday, July 18 OPS capwap Control And Provisioning of Wirelsss Acc. Point BOF Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Platform Lab,SAMSUNG Electronics Andy

Re: jabber rooms

2005-11-08 Thread Andy Bierman
Brian E Carpenter wrote: I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is [EMAIL PROTECTED] FYI: Audio feed info: http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ Jabber info: http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html Meeting slides:

Re: Working Group chartering

2006-01-10 Thread Andy Bierman
Burger, Eric wrote: IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it

Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal

2006-01-25 Thread Andy Bierman
Steve Silverman wrote: It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a maximum number of bytes) would be a minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users who are nominated to a limit list by

Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal

2006-01-25 Thread Andy Bierman
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Andy Bierman writes: I do not share your regulatory zeal. As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already. The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce draconian rules like this. But counting messages

Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal

2006-01-26 Thread Andy Bierman
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Andy Bierman writes: I think you missed my point. I should have said enforce or abide by draconian rules. Automating the process is even worse. Then stupid scripts disrupt WG activity on a regular basis. Inappropriate mailing list use should be dealt

Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

2006-03-20 Thread Andy Bierman
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:42:17PM -0800, Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 35 lines which said: The privileged port concept has some marginal utility on multiuser systems where you don't Joe-random-user to grab some port for a well known service.

Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors

2006-03-23 Thread Andy Bierman
Dave Crocker wrote: Michael StJohns wrote: What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it works out to be This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant benefits for the IETF:

Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors

2006-03-24 Thread Andy Bierman
Marshall Eubanks wrote: I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the past) many possible opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the income from sponsorship should be possible. People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our IAD, Ray

Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors

2006-03-24 Thread Andy Bierman
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in the other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures. Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying to get more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for

Re: Meeting format (Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors)

2006-03-24 Thread Andy Bierman
Harald Alvestrand wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Ray Pelletier wrote: ... A more workable model would be to treat the current type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value in the production of standards-track protocols

Re: 2 hour meetings

2006-03-25 Thread Andy Bierman
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject. I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for a 2 hour meeting. These

Re: 2 hour meetings

2006-03-25 Thread Andy Bierman
Edward Lewis wrote: At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame. I agree with this, but find that (in

Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors

2006-03-25 Thread Andy Bierman
Henning Schulzrinne wrote: Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem. Brian, this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee

Re: Meeting format (Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors)

2006-03-27 Thread Andy Bierman
WGs who even want to have a 1 day interim instead of a 2 hour slot in Montreal. (NETCONF WG volunteers right now ;-) (IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday. Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as anything else.) Brian Andy Andy Bierman wrote: Harald

Re: About cookies and refreshments cost and abuse

2006-03-28 Thread Andy Bierman
Stewart Bryant wrote: In Paris, we switched to a late dinner which was necessary in Paris but we did this in Dallas. Was this a general decision that I missed? I prefer dinner from 6 - 8 and a night session where the local customs support this. This might also cut down the need for

Re: RFC Author Count and IPR

2006-05-24 Thread Andy Bierman
David Harrington wrote: If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the first page of the document. It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the document in an contributors section. It's not just the first page. It also affects the reference

Re: Meetings in other regions

2006-07-17 Thread Andy Bierman
Marshall Eubanks wrote: Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect lots of flights from LA. For visitors, you might want to fly to LAX, rent a car, drive down the 405, and take a detour to the Laguna Beach area on

Re: LA - San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

2006-07-19 Thread Andy Bierman
Dave Crocker wrote: Clint Chaplin wrote: One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took LAX - SAN as his last leg. the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it. however the effort to rent a

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

2006-07-26 Thread Andy Bierman
todd glassey wrote: So let me ask the obvious thing... why is the RFP content being voted on? This is a business decision in regard to services and process. Why is any of it open to review inside the IETF? Because the lunatics want to run the asylum? ;-) Seriously though, it seems to me

Re: [Fwd: IETF Process discussions - next steps]

2006-08-25 Thread Andy Bierman
Brian E Carpenter wrote: I was quite surprised to discover that this message is not in the mailing list archive, so I am repeating it. A copy certainly reached the newtrk WG prior to its closure. Original Message Subject: IETF Process discussions - next steps Date: Thu, 10 Aug

Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process

2006-09-15 Thread Andy Bierman
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think NOMCOM is like a Representative Town Meeting, in which the representatives are chosen by a random selection process, rather than by election. The outcome, which supports in-depth consideration and

Re: Proceeding CDs

2006-10-06 Thread Andy Bierman
IETF Administrative Director wrote: The IAOC is preparing the 2007 budget and would like feedback on whether or not to continue producing the IETF meeting CDs of the Proceedings. It has been suggested as a way of employing limited Secretariat labor more productively that the IAOC discontinue

Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

2006-10-14 Thread Andy Bierman
Harald Alvestrand wrote: A typical NEA case (taken out of what Cisco's NAC is supposed to be good for): - Worker goes on holiday, takes laptop - New attack is discovered that exploits a newly discovered Windows vulnerability - Patch is created, distributed and installed - NEA posture

Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

2006-10-16 Thread Andy Bierman
Eliot Lear wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: I don't agree that this is low-hanging fruit. The server component of this system seems like a wonderful new target for DDoS and masquerade attacks. Well, first of all I don't see why this is any different than a radius server. In fact it could

Re: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

2006-10-24 Thread Andy Bierman
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] that's my understanding also. but nothing you said here contradicts my statement. if connection of the host to the network is predicated on having the host conform to whatever arbitrary policy the network wishes to

IETF 68 hotel full

2006-12-18 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68: http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps at any rate. The online form says no rooms are available that week. I'm having trouble finding Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic with

Re: IETF 68 hotel full

2006-12-18 Thread Andy Bierman
Janet P Gunn wrote: IIRC the hotel web site has a map. You could use that to find the names of nearby streets. Really? Where? The one I found didn't have street names. http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/PRGHITW/directions.do#localmap Janet Andy Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: IETF 68 hotel full

2006-12-18 Thread Andy Bierman
Andrew G. Malis wrote: You're much better off following this link (but I think you have to use Internet Explorer for it to work): http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2cp=50.09292~14.437961style=rlvl=17tilt=-90dir=0alt=-1000rtp=null~null

Re: Protest: Complexity running rampant

2007-02-19 Thread Andy Bierman
Dave Crocker wrote: Fred Baker wrote: is it a bad thing to provide the expressive nature of ASN.1 in a human-readable and popular data representation? The one thing IETF standardization certainly ought to imply is that there is a real constituency interesting in using the specification

Re: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X)' to Experimental RFC

2007-03-13 Thread Andy Bierman
John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a proposal is made I hear the complexity argument used against it. Everything we

Re: RFID (was: identifying yourself at the mic)

2007-03-27 Thread Andy Bierman
Schliesser, Benson wrote: Eric- It sounds like your argument is: We're too incompetent to say our names at the mic, so we're probably too incompetent to use a RFID system. Did I get that right? This sounds like a Rube Goldberg joke, not a serious thread. Could we possibly find a more

Re: RFID

2007-03-27 Thread Andy Bierman
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 02:42:19 PM -0700 Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are so many Process Wonks in the IETF who feel it is their sworn duty to yell State your name please! I think it's unfair to call people who do that process wonks or any

Re: RFID

2007-03-27 Thread Andy Bierman
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 03:51:56 PM -0700 Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonk_%28slang%29 According to wikipedia, a policy wonk is someone knowledgeable about and fascinated by details of government policy and programs

Re: RFID

2007-03-27 Thread Andy Bierman
Philip Guenther wrote: On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:10 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: ... I find it rather annoying to listen to the constant interruptions, reminding people of the process. The only reasons for such an interruption are: ... 2) you plan to base your opinion of the imminent comment

Re: consensus and anonymity

2007-05-31 Thread Andy Bierman
Spencer Dawkins wrote: Just following up here... From: Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, I wonder why anonymity is an important requirement. The mailing list verification has at least two properties that are more important to the IETF: the archives provide for anyone to be able to

Re: consensus and anonymity

2007-05-31 Thread Andy Bierman
Michael Thomas wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Spencer Dawkins wrote: Just following up here... From: Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, I wonder why anonymity is an important requirement. The mailing list verification has at least two properties that are more important to the IETF

Re: consensus and anonymity

2007-05-31 Thread Andy Bierman
Sam Hartman wrote: Andy == Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andy This is not an alternative. If you are not willing to make Andy your technical objections to a technical specification Andy publicly, then they cannot be part of the IETF Andy decision-making process

Re: consensus and anonymity

2007-05-31 Thread Andy Bierman
Michael Thomas wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in an open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw. It promotes indecision and inaction. Is there any human decision making process that has all

Re: consensus and anonymity

2007-06-01 Thread Andy Bierman
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Combined response: On 2007-05-31 23:07, Andy Bierman wrote: I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in an open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw. It promotes indecision and inaction. I think the ability of some other SDOs to take

take the train in Chicago

2007-07-15 Thread Andy Bierman
FYI, According to the WEB, it is really easy and really cheap to take the train from the O'Hare airport to the IETF hotel. (I have not verified this info however...) From the airport: 1) Walk east on the terminal 2 CTA Rail Walkway to the station 2) Take the Blue line train southbound

Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

2007-07-30 Thread Andy Bierman
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Well I was not indicating that, but simple maths can also say so. As it seems that more people is contributing from Europe than from US, it means for more people more traveling time, more time with immigration issues, etc. Probably we could count from 16 to 40 hours

Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

2007-07-30 Thread Andy Bierman
Brian E Carpenter wrote: I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider to be a related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week. What about holding two or three meetings

Re: on the value of running code (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)

2007-08-02 Thread Andy Bierman
Lixia Zhang wrote: .. I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as

Re: Informational vs. Informational

2007-08-20 Thread Andy Bierman
Paul Hoffman wrote: On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be an Informational RFC coming through the IETF process: At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote: I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a consensus call on whether we have sufficient support to be making this

Re: joining the IETF is luxury Re: 70th IETF - Registration

2007-09-07 Thread Andy Bierman
Adrian Farrel wrote: We shall see, but I don't know that putting up the price necessarily fixes the registration income issue. You only have to deter a relatively small proportion of attendees to wipe out the increase in charge. I assume that the converse is also being applied: viz. cutting

missing drafts

2008-02-05 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, Several drafts posted on the morning of Feb. 1 are returning '404 not found' errors. These 5 were posted in sequence, at 10:36 AM PT: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-ers-scvp-06.txt

Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!

2008-02-06 Thread Andy Bierman
Dave Crocker wrote: Ray Pelletier wrote: The venue will be the beautiful Citywest Hotel, Ireland’s premier Conference, Leisure Golf Resort and one of Europe’s most popular International Conference destinations. The four star Citywest Hotel is only 20km from Dublin airport and 15km from

Re: [IAOC] IETF 72 -- Dublin!

2008-02-07 Thread Andy Bierman
Fred Baker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: However, there are obvious logistical concerns, especially at lunch time. Is 90 minutes really enough time to bus into town, eat lunch, and get back? Lunch is always a problem. That's why we have a sandwich stand

Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

2008-04-22 Thread Andy Bierman
Eric Rescorla wrote: I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no strawpoll, hum,

Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

2008-04-22 Thread Andy Bierman
Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) ... Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and corresponding

Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

2008-04-23 Thread Andy Bierman
Harald Alvestrand wrote: Eric Rescorla wrote: At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600, Randy Presuhn wrote: Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus hums included getting a of sense of preferences

Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

2008-04-23 Thread Andy Bierman
David Harrington wrote: Here are my reasons why I support the charter, which align with yours: There are multiple types of users for data models. The operators and reviewers care about the semantic model much more than the syntactic mapping. Ease of use and stability have proven to be the

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

2008-07-18 Thread Andy Bierman
Eric Rescorla wrote: At Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:15 +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: Maybe it's just me, but... (Fanning the flames...) I do not understood why WGs are forbidden from conducting interim or other official extended technical f2f meetings before, during, or after, an IETF meeting.

Re: Running Code

2009-03-03 Thread Andy Bierman
Masataka Ohta wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I don't see the value of running code quite as others do. I agree. It was valuable in good old days, when implmenting a protocol was purely voluntary with no budget. Existence of multiple independent implementations, then, meant the protocol

Re: Running Code

2009-03-04 Thread Andy Bierman
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 3/3/09 9:08 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Since the goal of our work is to produce specifications that will allow multiple independent implementations to inter-operate successfully, How can you define successful interoperation of implementations

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management(Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of NewProtocols and Protocol Extensions) to BCP

2009-06-04 Thread Andy Bierman
Joel M. Halpern wrote: To put it differently, the OPS area has as much right to propose their requirements as any other area (Transport Congestion, Security, ...) has. And generally, the community has listened to such requests and gone along with them. Yes, we have produced a bit of a

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt

2009-08-13 Thread Andy Bierman
Stephen Hanna wrote: Thanks to Dan and Bert for answering my question. If most NETCONF implementations authenticate users and implement some form of authorization scheme, there should be no problem with including text in draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt that says NETCONF servers that

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt

2009-08-13 Thread Andy Bierman
Wes Hardaker wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:26:54 -0700, Andy Bierman i...@andybierman.com said: AB discard-changes only works because authorization is ignored, AB otherwise the agent would be deadlocked. Huh why would discard-changes be authorization ignorant??? That's just

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt

2009-08-14 Thread Andy Bierman
Wes Hardaker wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:55:15 -0700, Andy Bierman i...@andybierman.com said: AB Oherwise the agent would deadlock. AB discard-changes does not affect the running configuration. No, but it does affect the other users notion of changes. You should never be allowed

RE: Recheck on draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09//RE: [secdir] Assignments

2011-03-04 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, The get-config was removed from the diagram to make room for the notification stuff on the right. It does not mean that get-config was removed from the protocol. The box just showed 2 of the many operations, now only 1. Andy -Original Message- From: Tina Tsou

Re: primary Paris hotel booking

2012-01-03 Thread Andy Bierman
On 01/03/2012 08:52 AM, George, Wes wrote: Happy New Year, it's time for our triannual hotel complaint thread. I hate to do it, but I think that there are people who haven't looked at this yet, and I'm hoping that we can perhaps rectify it before the majority of folks try to book:

Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...

2012-08-03 Thread Andy Bierman
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com wrote: Hi, The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for management protocols. My personal take is that no one

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

2013-04-15 Thread Andy Bierman
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that they have not done their jobs unless they have raised a discuss. The one that took the cake for me personally was a discuss raised by a

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

2013-04-18 Thread Andy Bierman
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: Dan, On 4/16/13 2:00 AM, Dan Harkins wrote: Under the belief of garbage in, garbage out, I tend to lie on these sorts of repugnant questions. I invite others to join me. The more suspect the quality of the data, the less

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-02 Thread Andy Bierman
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.cawrote: #part sign=pgpmime Jari == Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Jari I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant Jari amount of reviews and changes in the late stages of the IETF

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-06 Thread Andy Bierman
.. WG chairs might like to comment, but I suspect that one lunchtime training session every four months does not constitute proactive management. +1 !!! It works on down the line too. WG Chairs meeting with I-D editors once every 4 months isn't so great either. If the total time has gone up

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

2013-05-13 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.comwrote: I am guessing that the authors intended the addition of the text emphasizing that the no-zone typedefs are derived general typedef addresses the difference in the patterns. Is there a YANG rule that says tat if

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-15 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, The evidence seems to show that the IESG is getting faster at their job and WGs are getting slower at theirs. I don't see any need for DISCUSS Rules. All the AD reviews I've experienced have improved the document, sometimes a lot. All DISCUSS issues got cleared with reasonable (even good)

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-20 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote: On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote: But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-20 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote: On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter milestones or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months behind schedule

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

2013-05-27 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi Jari, On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: John, * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has an open participation model * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable participating * People are

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

2013-06-07 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote: What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they are posting is actually being read... My strong suspicion would be that

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

2013-06-07 Thread Andy Bierman
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote: So why not move the signal? Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for everything else. The discussion still has

Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure

2013-06-08 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions to be on a dedicated and constrained mailing list in any way implies that this generalized and unconstrained list is somehow a failure. Filtering by subject line is unreliable. For example, please provide a filter that will not have

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

2013-06-27 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, I am strongly opposed to a remote meeting registration process and remote meeting fees. This increases the financial bias towards large corporate control of IETF standards. I like the IETF because anybody can comment on a draft or write a draft without paying fees. I think there could be

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-10 Thread Andy Bierman
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote: On 7/10/2013 5:17 PM, Josh Howlett wrote: Day passes have nothing to do with it. I disagree. Day passes encourage the notion that it's normal to parachute into the IETF to attend a single session. I think that the

Re: I-D Action: draft-barnes-healthy-food-07.txt

2013-07-16 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: ... given the number of graybeards who attend IETF, I think paying attention to the problem of excessive sugar in break foods is really important. I'm not supposed to have sugar, so the massive quantities of

Re: 6tsch BoF

2013-08-01 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works? (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't. The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests. The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not. Andy On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Ralph Droms

Re: 6tsch BoF

2013-08-01 Thread Andy Bierman
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM 8/1/13, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote: Hi, Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works? (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't. The sum of all

Re: 6tsch BoF

2013-08-01 Thread Andy Bierman
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:04 AM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote: we have never voted at IETFs. we believe in rough consensus and running code We are not voting. We are expressing agreement with a specific assertion. That is true whether the agreement is expressed via vocalization or motion

Re: 6tsch BoF

2013-08-01 Thread Andy Bierman
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote: On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote: Hi, Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works? (Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't. The sum of all hands

Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)

2013-08-03 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, I don't care if this report is published or not, but I will point out that the 1 week sample period is not that useful if the intent is to spot excessive posting. Somebody could be following up on 1 thread, and not post again for a year. Somebody could be participating in an IETF Last Call

Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again

2013-08-06 Thread Andy Bierman
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: Ulrich Herberg wrote: I think that the heat was exceptional. I have grown up in Munich, and I have rarely ever seen it that hot (either in Munich or Berlin). Maybe it's global warming? ;-) Damn coincidences! IETF 39 was in

Re: Last Call: draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard

2013-08-14 Thread Andy Bierman
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Randy, I prefer to leave this question to people who know something about Netconf, i.e. not me. But let me just say that, based on my thoroughly extensive 5-min. research, YANG seems to be incompatible with

Re: Last Call: draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard

2013-08-14 Thread Andy Bierman
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: On Aug 14, 2013, at 13:40, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR. so what does that say about yang, yang's suitability for netconf, cbor, and cbor's suitability? Good question. I'm not

Re: Radical Solution for remote participants

2013-08-16 Thread Andy Bierman
Hi, +1 On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: Maybe I am missing something. The reason we have face-to-face meetings is because there is value in such meetings that can not reasonably be achieved in other ways. I would like remote participation to be as