see http://www.fightforchildren.org/events_2_1.asp
At 03:57 PM 11/11/2004, William Gilliam wrote:
OK, I'll ask.
Who convinced the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders to show
up during today's afternoon break? C'mon, raise your hand.
WG
___
Ietf mailing
I *strongly* support please don't ever *mandate* it [XML2RFC].
Although, I'm perfectly happy using the obscure syntax of nroff (when
combined with a set of macros I received from George Swallow about 10-12
years ago). I produced a couple of drafts using xml and decided that
nroff was much easier
Out of curiosity, why is the IETF rate ~2000Y higher than their standard
internet room rate (try to book next week to get an example rate, and
see Best Flexible Rate w/ Breakfast)?
Thanks,
Lou
On 9/1/2009 2:00 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
60% of our room block is considered non smoking but, as our
Yes. I checked Sept 14-18. Try it yourself, I expect you'll get the
same results...
Lou
On 9/4/2009 7:32 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Lou,
Does that online rate you saw include in-room Internet, service
charges, and taxes? Those are included in the IETF rate.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Sep
I asked Ray about this problem in Hiroshima, his response was something
along the lines of conference rates are different and more complicated
from regular hotel rates. I have to say, I really think the community
deserves a detailed response on this topic from the secretariat...
Lou
On
--
From: Lou Berger
Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
To: Samuel Weiler
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Above market hotel room rates
Sent: Mar 23, 2010 7:36 PM
I asked Ray about this problem in Hiroshima, his response was something
along the lines of conference rates are different and more
, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Lou Berger lber...@labn.net
mailto:lber...@labn.net wrote:
I asked Ray about this problem in Hiroshima, his response was something
along the lines of conference rates are different and more complicated
from regular hotel
FWIW My rate in Hiroshima was both lower than the IETF rate and included
breakfast. I asked at check in if the IETF rate included anything not
included in my cheaper rate, and was told no by the hotel staff.
Lou
On 3/24/2010 8:23 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
Another factor is that the going IETF
24 17:25:41 2010, Lou Berger wrote:
FWIW My rate in Hiroshima was both lower than the IETF rate and
included
breakfast. I asked at check in if the IETF rate included anything
not
included in my cheaper rate, and was told no by the hotel staff.
Maybe it includes a warm fuzzy feeling
On 11/12/2010 08:21 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote:
As to IETF registration and badge, I would like to suggest (maybe this is
crazy), IETF should design another type participant, I mean Guest
Participant, they are free and more limited than one day pass. For example,
the Guest Participant can only
Xiangsong,
I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm endorsing the old
practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or
badge. Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that
isn't a significant issue. Them eating the snacks could possibly turn
into
:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote:
Xiangsong,
I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm endorsing the old
practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or badge.
Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that isn't a
significant issue. Them
/ipj
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote:
Humm, seeing that's what we just had, I'm not sure where you're coming from.
BTW I don't think there was any real surprise in this, and it doesn't diminish
from our local hosts' fabulous job. I thank them for their efforts and
hospitality.
Lou
On 11
I agree with Thomas, the meeting fees should cover the meetings and the
hotel bill should cover only an individual's room. This would be more
transparent!
Please feel free to take this as criticism (of the current fee
distribution policy).
Lou
On 6/21/2011 1:31 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
+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
Ole,
In the (somewhat far) past, my memory was that the IETF rate was *less*
then the normal available rate. This trend to higher rates is something
I only remember seeing over the last 5 or so years. Perhaps my memory
is just flawed, as I haven't done the work to verify this, but I
I agree there are many gray area cases that I think it would be best
to shy away from over specifying. But what do we do when there is a
bright line violation of RFC3979? IMO I think we should have consensus
on a very small set of repercussions for blatant violations of RFC3979.
Even if the
Stephen,
To add to what Adrian said, the 1:1 mapping is only for node
identifiers, interface identifiers have no such restriction. I think
it's reasonable to add some informative text to the draft on this point
as it may help avoid such confusion in the future.
Lou
On 8/22/2012 1:01 PM,
Peter,
Thank you for the comments. Please see below for responses in-line.
On 8/29/2012 11:31 PM, Peter Yee wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
Document:
Adrian,
Shout (or change the ID state) when you're ready for the update to
be submitted.
Thanks,
Lou
Original Message
Subject:Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-04
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:19 -0400
From: Lou Berger lber...@labn.net
Eek,
I somehow managed to broadcast this! My apologies.
Lou
On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
Adrian,
Shout (or change the ID state) when you're ready for the update to
be submitted.
Thanks,
Lou
Original Message
Subject:Re: Gen-ART review of draft
Hello,
I made this comment privately during the LC period. I don't mind
sharing it more widely:
My high-order take away is that it seems to me that this draft runs
counter to hierarchy-based solutions that can solve this problem just
fine without any additional RSVP modifications. I
Peng,
Thanks for the quick response! Please see in line below.
On 10/22/2012 9:39 PM, Peng JIANG wrote:
Hello Lou,
As to the technical details, the next hop as identified by the Path
message in the VPN context, will have a route and associated label
within the VPN context. This
On 1/4/2013 12:15 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
...
Are we deliberately evolving our language to use RFC 2119 terms as
the principle verbs of a formal specification language?
...
My view on this has evolved over time. I used to follow the practice of
using 2219 language only for emphasis. Over
Dan/Richard,
On 2/4/2013 10:05 PM, Lidan (Dan) wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review of this draft!
Section 2.1. Would be helpful to either include the old formats
and/or say explicitly what is changing.
Added the original format of Config, ConfigAck and ConfigNack
Richard,
Thank you for the review. I have one additional question/response on
your comments:
On 2/3/2013 2:13 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for
this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please
I think such a list is a great idea. Perhaps it would be good to have
this available as a 'safe place' for any (newbie, twobie or whatever)
to ask questions, and just call it a 'mentors' list...
Lou
On March 14, 2013 9:13:15 AM Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 3/14/2013 8:49 AM,
Etherpad is an awesome tool and we've found out to be hugely useful over a
number of IETFs, but be forewarned that on a couple of rare occasions the
notes have disappeared. In the first case, it took a manual step for it to
be restored. In the second we had a private copy...
Lou
On March
On April 12, 2013 2:33:13 PM Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/2013 10:12 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
I still think that the IETF community at large has no intentional
diversity bias, so the process of discussing and analyzing
diversity in the context of leadership is to
PM, Lou Berger wrote:
No argument from me, I'm just asking that a comment/position/question
that I don't understand be substantiated.
And I'm telling you that I think the numbers are highly suggestive
of bias. We can take a swing at getting a very rough handle on
that but I'm actually
On April 13, 2013 12:57:09 PM Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/13 4:09 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
Do you disagree, are you saying that the IETF should only/first try
to address only gender bias?
Clearly not, Lou.
Great. Glad to hear we agree. That said, some may prefer
Did anyone notice the NPR piece this AM?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/04/29/178810467/blazing-the-trail-for-female-programmers
Perhaps it's time for an IETF equivalent/chapter of
http://railsbridge.org/, http://blackfounders.com/,
http://wisecampaign.org.uk/, etc. ...
Lou
On
For Americans, is it much more expensive than a trip to Prague?
I just happen to be looking at flights for berlin at the moment. BA is
pretty much the same +-$1600 if I'm willing to take an extra hop, closer
to $2K for one hop.
I generally find going to Europe in the summer to be pretty
On 5/28/2013 10:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
... The only
requirement is that the chairs conclude that the existence such a draft
has WG consensus.
...
Strictly speaking, I believe the only requirement for a document to be
published as a WG document is that a WG chair approves it.
I do
+1.
On August 2, 2013 1:13:05 PM Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm completely against participating anonymously because of IPR issues.
I'm mostly against pseudonymous participation for the same reason. I
need to be able to know who I'm dealing with, in order to know if there
are
Hi,
I definitely agree that this is a really useful document. Lots of good
background and general considerations. But I think it misses two
important points that should be addressed prior to publication:
1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and
gauging consensus
The draft
Pete,
On 10/10/2013 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
I think it misses two
important points that should be addressed prior to publication:
1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and
gauging consensus
Yeah, as I just replied
37 matches
Mail list logo
