+1.Sasha Vainshtein
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 17:57, John C Klensin wrote:
Folks,
May I suggest that we wind this discussion thread down.
Whether correct or not, analyses of Khaled's character are
probably not helpful and repetitive
: Thursday, December 21, 2017 6:59 PM
To: Khaled Omar
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf; rtgwg
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Khaled Omar
<eng.khaled.o...@hotmail.com<mailto:eng.khaled.o...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> Can we just move t
9 PM
> *To:* John C Klensin
> *Cc:* rtgwg; Khaled Omar; ietf
> *Subject:* Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
>
>
>
> The actual problem here is that the draft discussion's don't actually
> belong on the IETF@ list though... They belong in their respective WG
&
The actual problem here is that the draft discussion's don't actually
belong on the IETF@ list though... They belong in their respective WG
lists, or perhaps on the IRTF list.
Can we just move the discussion(s) there? :)
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Folks,
May I suggest that we wind this discussion thread down.
Whether correct or not, analyses of Khaled's character are
probably not helpful and repetitive versions of them are less
so. The S/N ratio on the IETF list is never wonderful and this
thread should not contribute to making it
On Dec 21, 2017, at 4:21 AM, Khaled Omar wrote:
> As I said before, I don't mind to join a discussion if the topic is
> interesting and its information is clear, but I was tired of asking for
> technical discussion so it will take the drafts forward.
You haven't
On 21 December 2017 at 09:21, Khaled Omar
wrote:
> > Another very valuable thing to do is just sit and listen to people talk
> about problems in the IETF, and then see if you can come up with a small,
> narrowly scoped proposal that will help to solve one of those
ailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:07 PM
To: Khaled Omar
Cc: ietf; rtgwg
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
On Dec 20, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Allen <aal...@blackberry.com> wrote:
> So I think your first task is to wr
On Dec 20, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Allen wrote:
> So I think your first task is to write a draft that clearly explains the
> problems and the requirements to solve those problems without addressing the
> specifics of the solutions you envision and then achieve consensus
017 3:55 PM
To: Christer Holmberg; Robert Wilton; Khaled Omar
Cc: ietf; rtgwg
Subject: RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
IMHO a draft that identifies the current problems separate from the draft that
proposes solutions is probably the best way forward. Then the discussion c
To: Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com>; Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.o...@hotmail.com>
Cc: ietf <i...@ietf.org>; rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
Hi,
>As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully
>positive) sug
gwg
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
On 20/12/2017 11:27, Khaled Omar wrote:
Hi Robert,
It is true, i'll address these questions and will replace the existing text
with a clear introduction about a comparison between KRP and BGP and between
NEP and other IGPs so it can
it all wrong and you have
thought of a better solution.
Kind regards,
Rob
Original Message
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
From: Robert Wilton
To: Khaled Omar
CC: ietf ,rtgwg
Hi Khaled,
As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two
: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:13 AM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.o...@hotmail.com>
Cc: ietf <i...@ietf.org>; rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
Hi Khaled,
As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully
positive)
Hi,
>As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully
>positive) suggestions (sorry, none of which is technical):
>
>(1) From taking a very quick look at your drafts, it may be helpful to
>have three sections at the top of the drafts that answer these 3
>questions (before you
Hi Khaled,
As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully
positive) suggestions (sorry, none of which is technical):
(1) From taking a very quick look at your drafts, it may be helpful to
have three sections at the top of the drafts that answer these 3
questions (before
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 22:04 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:46:29PM +,
> Khaled Omar wrote
> a message of 14 lines which said:
>
> > I noticed that the IETF participants gives only negative comments
> > regarding the submitted
Khaled
Original Message
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
To: Khaled Omar
CC: ietf ,rtgwg
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:46:29PM +,
Khaled Omar wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> I noticed that the IETF participants gives only
s been stopped, but with KRP and
NEP I received almost nothing thats why I'm asking for decisions regarding the
discussion.
Original Message
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
To: Khaled Omar
CC: ietf ,rtgwg
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:46:29PM +,
Khaled Omar wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> I noticed that the IETF participants gives only negative comments
> regarding the submitted IDs, that is good in some cases if it is
> true, but to ignore the positive
20 matches
Mail list logo