On 13/08/2012 04:03, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected
a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks. Efficiency
suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.
At the risk of being at
Hi Dave,
I agree that procedure of ietf processes should be respected and
followed by all, and/or community should understand such difference in
process before asked its opinion. I hope your comments will be
considered by IETF and IAB in the future.
thanking you for your comments,
AB
(at)shockey.us
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael StJohns
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:03 PM
To: Glen Zorn; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document.
+1
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in
this case.)
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
+1
Alkuperäinen viesti
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
Vastaanottaja: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
Kopio: IAB i...@iab.org,IETF ietf@ietf.org
On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
...
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in
this case.)
The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in the current
situation.
The perception
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with
Randy Bush:
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used
to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a
On 11/08/2012 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
...
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really
appropriate in this case.)
The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used
to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a
On 11/08/2012 16:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it
seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF
in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in
the time available. Brian
+1
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
...
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate
in this case.)
The for the IRTF underscores
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate)
At 08:20 11-08-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
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 arguing against the document, but merely noting that an
implication of IETF community support is going to be
26 matches
Mail list logo
