From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sun Nov 3 10:45:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43C821E8102 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:45:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kABcwKGDGb9s for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:44:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCF511E82E9 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:44:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA3IiEFI002348 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 18:44:14 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-a505.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.165.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA3IiCOD002326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 18:44:14 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Routing WG statuses Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 18:44:12 -0000 Message-ID: <01f401ced8c4$b1e3d090$15ab71b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac7YxI/IfoVQrMbHQC+VWy77V4BwUA== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 18:45:05 -0000 Hi, Just a heads up that the chairs of a number (9 so far) of the WGs in the Routing Area have posted status slides to give you a better handle on planning your week, and to save some time in the Area meeting. Adrian From db3546@att.com Mon Nov 4 10:44:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC9211E8196 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:44:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ro2305WGAmO for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697EC11E81BC for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:43:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 3eae7725.0.3926938.00-324.10991342.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:43:52 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 5277eae8445b1f0f-bc119ca61f74b2b18339ae32308b42aab0d0f6d3 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA4Ihllo029615; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:43:47 -0500 Received: from mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.241]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA4IhcQM029529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:43:40 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.82]) by mlpi409.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:43:26 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.75]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:43:26 -0500 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Routing WG statuses Thread-Topic: Routing WG statuses Thread-Index: Ac7YxI/IfoVQrMbHQC+VWy77V4BwUAAyQz3w Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:43:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <01f401ced8c4$b1e3d090$15ab71b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <01f401ced8c4$b1e3d090$15ab71b0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.158.178] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=TJDyvSZa c=1 sm=0 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=P4lNxxC7K6UA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9] X-AnalysisOut: [zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=srGniGIl0] X-AnalysisOut: [nEA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=88znTHCo2hUkjn2m2n8A:9 a=CjuIK1q] X-AnalysisOut: [_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=FCeVFUhI3jrHon3q:21 a=y5HrimD] X-AnalysisOut: [PEHJrnCXD:21] X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:44:03 -0000 Hi, I don't seem to have statuses from: i2rs, isis, karp, ospf, and pim. Thanks, Deborah -----Original Message----- From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion-bounce= s@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 1:44 PM To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Routing WG statuses Hi, Just a heads up that the chairs of a number (9 so far) of the WGs in the Ro= uting Area have posted status slides to give you a better handle on planning your week, and to save some time in the Area meeting. Adrian _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From bew@cisco.com Mon Nov 4 14:10:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0470D11E80F8 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:10:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ARZPwHLsbF2D for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:10:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3092921E80AA for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:10:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1297; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383603023; x=1384812623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6YRBq+aX0XiGGOOJvNmpislMUaKFU9evp9MpvqgePr4=; b=byK1AJfSSsszQNJ7eny2e1V5C1zvcwaj9GxB/wXB4S2N0MkR/LebXLmX RqU3DynmBHYnigES7KpxKpOz6fyxc2bjIxBG5u6B46WDyW30WaRjOf4+Z buTfIbTnIJYpTJjLk5XJ4sBOOMtZ20CIJYofO41danZzd6hNV6xA7caOB w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAOMZeFKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABWA4MHOL9HS4EsFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQcECxEEAQEoBycfCQgGE4d7Bg2+NASOD4EWIxAHBguDD4EOA4lAjkqGPYtMg0cbgTU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,635,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="87898117" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2013 22:10:04 +0000 Received: from [10.21.75.216] ([10.21.75.216]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA4M9t65009313; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:09:58 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: Routing WG statuses From: Brian Weis In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:09:59 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <01f401ced8c4$b1e3d090$15ab71b0$@olddog.co.uk> To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:10:36 -0000 Hi Deborah, I sent this to you mid-morning, but I'll resend it shortly. Thanks, Brian On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:43 AM, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I don't seem to have statuses from: i2rs, isis, karp, ospf, and pim. >=20 > Thanks, > Deborah >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 1:44 PM > To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Routing WG statuses >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Just a heads up that the chairs of a number (9 so far) of the WGs in = the Routing > Area have posted status slides to give you a better handle on planning = your > week, and to save some time in the Area meeting. >=20 > Adrian >=20 > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion --=20 Brian Weis Security, Enterprise Networking Group, Cisco Systems Telephone: +1 408 526 4796 Email: bew@cisco.com From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Tue Nov 5 18:27:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF40021E80C9 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:27:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mvk3EyublEex for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:27:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE8A11E81D0 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id rA62RIsS011267; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 03:27:18 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1394E20402A; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 03:27:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD352038ED; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 03:27:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.86.3]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id rA62RE3E017470; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 03:27:16 +0100 Message-ID: <5279A902.9070002@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 03:27:14 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: draft from the DHC WG... about routing and DHCP Prefix Delegation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Leaf Yeh , "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:27:26 -0000 Hello participants to the RTGAREA, We wrote recently a Problem Statement draft about a routing problem at a Relay Agent during the Prefix Delegation operation of the DHCPv6 protocol. draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem-00.txt M. Boucadair, L. Yeh, A. Petrescu Presented on Nov. 5th, 2013, slides at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-dhc-10.pdf Following the DHC WG presentation we have been directed to the RTGAREA with this draft. Please have a look at the draft and comment. Is this a routing protocol problem? Should we use a routing protocol in tandem with an address autoconfiguration protocol (DHCP) to address this problem? Yours, Alex From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Nov 11 11:55:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FC421E80F8 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:55:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L10VOHKs81VR for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E4F21E8103 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rABJtMUo020649 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:55:22 GMT Received: from 950129200 (westford-nat.juniper.net [66.129.232.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rABJtKvt020631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:55:21 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: NomCom Feedback Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:55:19 -0000 Message-ID: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac7fF++JA2pDl/1RQEex5IDmhAR/vA== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:55:34 -0000 Hi, If you haven't done so already, please go to https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ and enter your feedback on the nominees for IESG, IAOC, and IAB positions. Recall that NomCom is interested in specifics rather than "Support" or "Don't know this person" Adrian From bmanning@isi.edu Mon Nov 11 21:23:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A3811E8113 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:23:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lqvs80Foa78L for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:23:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A3711E810E for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:23:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (h27.129.49.24.static.bajabb.com [24.49.129.27] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAC5Mnn3005451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:23:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: NomCom Feedback Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: manning bill In-Reply-To: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:22:48 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:23:27 -0000 alas, i am un credentialed. no feedback from me this time=85 =20 (where does one acquire an IETF userid/password anyway and what, besides = restricting inputs, are they used for? /bill On 11November2013Monday, at 11:55, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, >=20 > If you haven't done so already, please go to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ and enter your = feedback on > the nominees for IESG, IAOC, and IAB positions. >=20 > Recall that NomCom is interested in specifics rather than "Support" or = "Don't > know this person" >=20 > Adrian >=20 > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Mon Nov 11 23:20:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C3E21E808F for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:20:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jqxNT17jIjx for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:20:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0532F11E80FB for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id mc17so4202493pbc.21 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:20:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mixUmxaS5JATnKJ9iZlxVnj0X7QtYci8kMzeSCQNEHI=; b=yJiS6e6yWZM8CUidi/qFZcuQhxCQjdWHw1O4ZnsamieKH6C4bzY9sls2KesrX2uwwA JbxuUxx2nqkST2d7eALsLfIu+YXOs75osic9CplidhOaYRsXKD1YV20nklG4zSaoh19P CUMyWM2kLbkYr+lcjrICJ0tIn6g0HsGw/hAnKHi/HdEvw9EXJfM60gLSnmqjuefREoH+ sW16/UbSGEzx0KBqHLbwJhx+fAioX6+UjA+p+I/GekfHZXL86+tj8x8wnviWEbvPgUZS wI5mKR223MV4pRQ9T37BblMQlUJ5mCx7Ur8sifFeYVRhHmWH/GvxlRsSWqN6oQYB+qwg HHKQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.254.132 with SMTP id ai4mr34194550pbd.51.1384240808671; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.69.8.5 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:20:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> References: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:20:08 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NomCom Feedback From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e0a11af422f04eaf5ad0e Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:20:09 -0000 --047d7b2e0a11af422f04eaf5ad0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I never been to any meeting, so is my input needed or it is better if I knew them in person as well. I never done feedback because I thought nomcom may not need it from remote people . AB On Monday, November 11, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > If you haven't done so already, please go to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ and enter your > feedback on > the nominees for IESG, IAOC, and IAB positions. > > Recall that NomCom is interested in specifics rather than "Support" or > "Don't > know this person" > > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > --047d7b2e0a11af422f04eaf5ad0e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I never been to any meeting, so is my input needed or it is better if I kne= w them in person as well. I never done feedback because I thought nomcom=A0= may not need it from remote people .

AB

On M= onday, November 11, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,

If you haven't done so already, please go to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ and enter your= feedback on
the nominees for IESG, IAOC, and IAB positions.

Recall that NomCom is interested in specifics rather than "Support&quo= t; or "Don't
know this person"

Adrian

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
--047d7b2e0a11af422f04eaf5ad0e-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Nov 12 04:22:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55ECB21E8105 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:22:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3MhGlQiz0kP3 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA60C21E80BC for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:22:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rACCMfro009842; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:22:41 GMT Received: from 950129200 (ip-64-134-40-90.public.wayport.net [64.134.40.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rACCMc9J009825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:22:40 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Abdussalam Baryun'" References: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: NomCom Feedback Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:22:38 -0000 Message-ID: <02ba01cedfa1$e1865910$a4930b30$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02BB_01CEDFA1.E187DFB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKvGNDGp/yYgD9x6ff96My12A9YZwJyEtMwmE2AkWA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:22:49 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02BB_01CEDFA1.E187DFB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone may provide feedback. It is not necessary to provide feedback. You should provide feedback if you have something specific to say about a person who is a candidate or you have something specific to say about the desirable characteristics or skills for a job. Adrian From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com] Sent: 12 November 2013 07:20 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: NomCom Feedback I never been to any meeting, so is my input needed or it is better if I knew them in person as well. I never done feedback because I thought nomcom may not need it from remote people . AB On Monday, November 11, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi, If you haven't done so already, please go to https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ and enter your feedback on the nominees for IESG, IAOC, and IAB positions. Recall that NomCom is interested in specifics rather than "Support" or "Don't know this person" Adrian _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion ------=_NextPart_000_02BB_01CEDFA1.E187DFB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Anyone may provide = feedback.

It is not necessary to provide = feedback.

You should provide feedback if = you have something specific to say about a person who is a candidate or = you have something specific to say about the desirable characteristics = or skills for a job.

Adrian

 

From: Abdussalam Baryun = [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 November 2013 = 07:20
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: = routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: NomCom = Feedback

 

I never been = to any meeting, so is my input needed or it is better if I knew them in = person as well. I never done feedback because I thought nomcom may = not need it from remote people .

 

AB

On Monday, November 11, 2013, Adrian Farrel = wrote:

Hi,

If you haven't done = so already, please go to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ = and enter your feedback on
the nominees for IESG, IAOC, and IAB = positions.

Recall that NomCom is interested in specifics rather = than "Support" or "Don't
know this = person"

Adrian

_______________________________________= ________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussio= n

------=_NextPart_000_02BB_01CEDFA1.E187DFB0-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Nov 12 06:44:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA79811E8143 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:44:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjgpxcGgLsCr for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E838311E8168 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:44:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rACEiO9D013267 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:44:25 GMT Received: from 950129200 (westford-nat.juniper.net [66.129.232.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rACEiNFe013228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:44:24 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: More nominees for RTG AD Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:44:22 -0000 Message-ID: <02f701cedfb5$ade69ed0$09b3dc70$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac7ftX6ReywwLya2SHGrxFR88yZ5Bw== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:44:37 -0000 Hi, Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ today I see that the pool of nominees for RTG has increased. Please be sure to provide feedback for them all. Thanks, Adrian From mcr@sandelman.ca Tue Nov 12 07:18:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C84711E8169 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:18:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.996 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XswYl5+1NBU8 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:18:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8016621E8132 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CD6202E0; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:30:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 028FF63B88; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:18:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E731163AEF; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:18:09 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: manning bill Subject: Re: NomCom Feedback In-Reply-To: References: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:18:22 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable manning bill wrote: > alas, i am un credentialed. > no feedback from me this time=E2=80=A6=20=20 > (where does one acquire an IETF userid/password anyway and what, > besides restricting inputs, are they used for?=20 On the datatracker.ietf.org web site you can get a login. You can also email your comments directly to nomcom13@ietf.org. That makes work for the nomcom chair who has to sort your comments into=20 buckets. =2D-=20 ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh network= s [=20 ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect= [=20 ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails = [=20 =09 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUoJGr4qHRg3pndX9AQI/jQP/URbVGlLLVrl54XCmioDqdYJ5a30EhhA4 wa/LfxmQ4ePhA5l7lp4u/uPLcgUtf1FnlR8DPh+lILZBK4FKIZ7W0mSsFjDqMBWy amUdqH6M3IVxZi2zouhCqPjffZgxvOoUswpgCA+w7goxaOSxkVBbEY6kpTGbS+9V dJxkF8jEITs= =rmaY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From eckert@cisco.com Tue Nov 12 08:21:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF4221E80A1 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:21:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eIbF6bkUyZ9M for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA6F21E80AA for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:21:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2494; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384273288; x=1385482888; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=cSrgyZYtc/wcCuP47Lw47yHXjO+dB25IUvU6908VxOs=; b=JY1MfQEl8iPFQo8zE9tk2UfvQ1wM0xLLh8wYImxrdZkL2yzF5DqWkgv6 7fJbHz0vpYZAo0q97VV/AKYHETXKGMBy/ZVeVvjPAWO94Xw/5okx3ISsu n7Zo8Xl6yqjHkmTzMCz//0z3US1san7qjjmorXjVZ1bX5XjHrnWvhkEY5 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAP5UglKrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABagwc4vyhLgSoWdIIlAQEBBAEBATc0CwULCxEBAwEBAQkeBw8FDQYfAwYOE4dvAw4OtRwNiV8EjG2CcgeEMQOJQoxigWoBjFKFOINHGw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,686,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="97375153" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2013 16:21:25 +0000 Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rACGLOlv026624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:21:24 GMT Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rACGLNqs017856; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:21:23 -0800 Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id rACGLN5Q017855; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:21:23 -0800 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:21:23 -0800 From: Toerless Eckert To: Adrian Farrel Subject: Re: NomCom Feedback Message-ID: <20131112162123.GX6467@cisco.com> References: <009901cedf17$f4110100$dc330300$@olddog.co.uk> <02ba01cedfa1$e1865910$a4930b30$@olddog.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02ba01cedfa1$e1865910$a4930b30$@olddog.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:21:32 -0000 Btw: If you know about a candidates IETF work due to electronic interactions, then that is in my book even more important insight into a persons qualifications than personal interactions. This includes work on results (RFCs), IETF mailing list interactions, use of/feedback-into IETF tools (eg: if already in IESG, IESG review feedback on documents) and the like. I am saying this, because i was in NomCom last year, and in my memory the feedback is very much biased by people who are in or work closely with IETF leadership in person, so there is ample feedback about in-person skills of candidates. The mayority of work in the IETF is via electronic means, so feedback from people who primarily or solely could vet a candidates qualities on those electronic work channels would be very good to have more of. Cheers Toerless On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:22:38PM +0000, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Anyone may provide feedback. > It is not necessary to provide feedback. > You should provide feedback if you have something specific to say about a person > who is a candidate or you have something specific to say about the desirable > characteristics or skills for a job. > Adrian > > From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com] > Sent: 12 November 2013 07:20 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Re: NomCom Feedback > > I never been to any meeting, so is my input needed or it is better if I knew > them in person as well. I never done feedback because I thought nomcom may not > need it from remote people . > > AB > > On Monday, November 11, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > If you haven't done so already, please go to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ and enter your feedback on > the nominees for IESG, IAOC, and IAB positions. > > Recall that NomCom is interested in specifics rather than "Support" or "Don't > know this person" > > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy! From lars@netapp.com Thu Nov 14 06:29:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5959621E80DE for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:29:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.758 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.841, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zmC3PGd8x3BD for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.netapp.com (mx1.netapp.com [216.240.18.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94C011E80E2 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:29:15 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,700,1378882800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="292178082" Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) by mx1-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 06:29:16 -0800 Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.51]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:29:15 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Subject: Fwd: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG Thread-Topic: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG Thread-Index: AQHO4UUNo0vElbAGd0SVhro/WnUq0A== Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:29:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5B131180-FA93-4A05-B3BE-3A23767EBD9D@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_37F6299C-4B34-48C7-8721-7BFB9DC36929"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:37:06 -0800 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "rrg@irtf.org" List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:29:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_37F6299C-4B34-48C7-8721-7BFB9DC36929 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii FYI. Please discuss on rrg@irtf.org. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Eggert, Lars" > Subject: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG > Date: November 14, 2013 at 15:23:13 GMT+1 > To: "rrg@irtf.org" >=20 > Hi, >=20 > the RRG has been awfully quiet for a while now. I'd like to see if we = can reboot the group and bring in some new work. There is clearly = interesting work happening in the routing research space; we handed out = several ANRP prizes to routing papers over the last few years. How can = we bring some of that research into the RRG? >=20 > To that end, I'd like to ask if people would be interested in = organizing a session - either at the next IETF meeting or maybe = co-located with a conference - where folks can bring some ongoing = academic work, in order to see if there's enough momentum to carry the = group forward. >=20 > If that sounds interesting, great. I hope if sounds interesting enough = to some of you to volunteer to put in the cycles and organize said = meeting. If that doesn't sounds interesting, I'm all ears on how else we = can restart activities in the RRG. Or maybe it's time to close? >=20 > Lars > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg --Apple-Mail=_37F6299C-4B34-48C7-8721-7BFB9DC36929 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBUoTeOdZcnpRveo1xAQKzRQP/e8ailsEkVtYwrHZdr2tUXWrTkoNtuj4g gs5cDcStcjAgunwf3Sd9rvqSx5I88B3LB/UlGyJtI3tGWNoC3BZWmpZHaia1cuCH ffCPGImvOWaHcxTtlp7F6eOlZon8kH+Yh+tWFzUCowOVInEriweky1UJEXdFznEH MEzThtIjXLA= =xXUo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_37F6299C-4B34-48C7-8721-7BFB9DC36929-- From db3546@att.com Thu Nov 14 11:08:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D6E21E80AE for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:08:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9kn+cZF7V-Z for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:08:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1686221E80E7 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:08:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) with ESMTP id 6bf15825.2aaaf384b940.323651.00-558.917488.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:08:38 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 52851fb607cfde6b-666232d1eecaf1df07d1bd52e2672b8bb38c636f Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 4bf15825.0.323645.00-334.917464.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:08:37 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 52851fb51c07c470-b77aa576b879c60113d0b4dbefcd7f38a20a7e7c Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAEJ8anK016162; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:08:36 -0500 Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAEJ8Tdk016023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:08:32 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9F.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUB9F.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.71]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:08:15 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.75]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9F.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:08:15 -0500 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Subject: Routing Area Draft Minutes Thread-Topic: Routing Area Draft Minutes Thread-Index: Ac7hbN5rigAIu659Tq23flzTWmC8yg== Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:08:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.232] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80C0F3FC6MISOUT7MSGUSR9O_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=GJW/5JxK c=1 sm=0 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=wSbAmmimycIA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP] X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=sOD36oncB8gA:10 a=48vgC7mUA] X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=Ifg3YRJNVMxVq1ghpxYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=pCBiUTR] X-AnalysisOut: [7igYA:10 a=_tvmUrcsnrYA:10 a=B2r7CnPPoddSao1aCZYA:9 a=_W_S] X-AnalysisOut: [_7VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=LPyiKUjpkhspcB-U:21] Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "stbryant@cisco.com" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:08:49 -0000 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80C0F3FC6MISOUT7MSGUSR9O_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Draft minutes are uploaded at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-rtgarea Comments welcome. Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides- Deborah --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80C0F3FC6MISOUT7MSGUSR9O_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
Draft minutes are uploaded at:
 
Comments welcome.
 
Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides-
 
Deborah
 
 
 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80C0F3FC6MISOUT7MSGUSR9O_-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sat Nov 16 02:13:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7EF11E80FB for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:13:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P8weq7AHPsbE for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E3421F9C55 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v10so4475996pde.36 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=O7tdZ+J76vKribH5qiOksHss4oxTsxxhDlTkxykAQ3w=; b=fLF9Xu/16GDNjN0OrnqGpxDL3q3YkZEB5iXJIMamI2khkWWLRYkS83xZ6KlqQQIJni o74KvCgIUno/ZjEHLyIHjhnOmwv/UJrex+sRf2MvO5yqSoaalfQXonbgJ1ALFwrKwuye U1+5RGiNiIiiYzInlBt0jSSiKUAc2k55nlFASM44KfnFI8ssMK+yOOasgiDpWJpqG1gV YqmCnoVxU3pJb/aeZTTijIh5zbhi6PO33xfj8RBKgDN8Ymv/7t14ze1ObqgANBrVy5uI 3gteF8+TShMDp0DghodZ2U+IIYLdhcAworkJXez/Mte0bWXO+7RkjdJYPoFfVEVeIuVJ H6Lw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.14.41 with SMTP id m9mr10759271pac.123.1384596830489; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.59.1 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:13:50 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Routing Area Draft Minutes From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520f5173d109f04eb489249 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:13:51 -0000 --bcaec520f5173d109f04eb489249 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My respond comment about area management meeting of routing. This message is just a comment, but I know that I was not active to participate in meetings, so this is my effort or opinion and it may improve the meeting in future if you agree. It seems that meeting discussions (as from minutes) only for routing area documents, does not mention influences of other works outside routing area. What about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I think the meeting is not covering all important concerns or activities within Routing Area. What about documents that are delayed for a year to become RFC like OLSRv2? I request that if a DT is created in this area (Manet WG has one now and maybe others) then it is good to mention it in the meeting, also mentioning the community complains related to area-work if there are. AB On Thursday, November 14, 2013, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote: > Hi, > > Draft minutes are uploaded at: > *http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-rtgarea* > > Comments welcome. > > Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides- > > Deborah > > > --bcaec520f5173d109f04eb489249 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My respond comment about area=A0management meeting of routing.=A0This = message is just=A0a comment, but I know that I was not active to participat= e in meetings,=A0so this is my=A0effort or=A0opinion and it may=A0improve t= he meeting in future=A0if you agree.

It seems that meeting=A0discussions (as from minutes)=A0only= for routing area documents,=A0does not mention influences of other works o= utside routing area. What about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I thin= k the meeting is not covering all important=A0concerns or activities within= Routing Area. What about documents that are delayed for a year to become R= FC like OLSRv2?

I=A0request that if a DT is created in this area (Manet WG h= as one now=A0and maybe others)=A0then it is good to mention it in the meeti= ng, also mentioning=A0the community complains related to area-work=A0if the= re are.

AB

On Thursday, November 14, 2013, BRUNGARD, DEB= ORAH A wrote:
Hi,
=A0
Draft minutes are uploaded at:
=A0
Comments welcome.
=A0
Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides-
=A0
Deborah
=A0
=A0
--bcaec520f5173d109f04eb489249-- From ietf@thomasclausen.org Sat Nov 16 03:39:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D2311E8247 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:39:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wUba4f59FC25 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9365C11E8233 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:38:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251451C05A6; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:38:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.147.23] (mtg91-1-82-227-24-173.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.24.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 018FF1C059A; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:38:33 -0800 (PST) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-D13B70B1-62EA-4323-A3C2-435C2F4822FE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <57E244B2-8723-49AE-A592-2B73B5D11C9B@thomasclausen.org> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B511) From: Thomas Heide Clausen Subject: Re: Routing Area Draft Minutes Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:38:30 +0100 To: Abdussalam Baryun Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:39:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail-D13B70B1-62EA-4323-A3C2-435C2F4822FE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Abdussalam, I will leave others to address the other points of your email, but I can spe= ak to part of this: On 16 nov. 2013, at 11:13, Abdussalam Baryun wr= ote: > It seems that meeting discussions (as from minutes) only for routing area d= ocuments, does not mention influences of other works outside routing area. W= hat about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I think the meeting is not co= vering all important concerns or activities within Routing Area. What about d= ocuments that are delayed for a year to become RFC like OLSRv2? OLSRv2 is not published as it has normative references to other documents, c= urrently being finalized - and that, with the help of both SEC and RTG ADs. Indeed, the RFC Editor not publishing a document as long as its normative re= ferences have not stabilized (which, for IETF documents, means that they the= mselves have been published as RFCs) is both normal procedure, and is highly= desirable: you would, for example, not be able to claim conformance to a st= andard, if the standard had "not yet stable normative references", as these m= ight change (and, render your implementation non-conformant) The issue was that the SEC ADs, in reviewing OLSRv2, uncovered the need for s= ome more security work to be undertaken. I am sure that you agree that "secu= rity is good", right? The decision at the time was to handle that in separat= e documents, add a normative reference to these documents from OLSRv2, move O= LSRv2 to the RFC Editor, and then focus on the security documents. The authors of OLSRv2, the relevant WG, and the responsible ADs (RTG and SEC= ) are all aware of the state of advancement, and the authors and the ADs are= working hard (and, in unison) to move forward. Indeed, the WG did its work a= nd did WGLC the security documents a while back, the IESG reviewed them, gav= e their comments. The SEC ADs raised, each, a discuss - discusses which, ess= entially, amounts to helping the authors get a couple of (important) details= right. Incidentally, I believe, resolution of these discuss'es is immanent.= So this particular point is very much normal - and desirable - IETF process.= I'd almost say that it's proof that the IETF process works ;) Best, Thomas Sent from my iPad >=20 > My respond comment about area management meeting of routing. This message i= s just a comment, but I know that I was not active to participate in meeting= s, so this is my effort or opinion and it may improve the meeting in future i= f you agree. >=20 > It seems that meeting discussions (as from minutes) only for routing area d= ocuments, does not mention influences of other works outside routing area. W= hat about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I think the meeting is not co= vering all important concerns or activities within Routing Area. What about d= ocuments that are delayed for a year to become RFC like OLSRv2? >=20 > I request that if a DT is created in this area (Manet WG has one now and m= aybe others) then it is good to mention it in the meeting, also mentioning t= he community complains related to area-work if there are. >=20 > AB >=20 >> On Thursday, November 14, 2013, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote: >> Hi, >> =20 >> Draft minutes are uploaded at: >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-rtgarea >> =20 >> Comments welcome. >> =20 >> Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides- >> =20 >> Deborah >> =20 >> =20 > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion --Apple-Mail-D13B70B1-62EA-4323-A3C2-435C2F4822FE Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Abdussalam,

I= will leave others to address the other points of your email, but I can spea= k to part of this:

On 16 nov. 2013, at 11:13, Abdus= salam Baryun <abdussalambar= yun@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems that meeting discussions (as from minutes) only fo= r routing area documents, does not mention influences of other works ou= tside routing area. What about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I think t= he meeting is not covering all important concerns or activities within R= outing Area. What about documents that are delayed for a year to become RFC l= ike OLSRv2?

OLSRv2 is not published as= it has normative references to other documents, currently being finalized -= and that, with the help of both SEC and RTG ADs.

I= ndeed, the RFC Editor not publishing a document as long as its normative ref= erences have not stabilized (which, for IETF documents, means that they them= selves have been published as RFCs) is both normal procedure, and is highly d= esirable: you would, for example, not be able to claim conformance to a stan= dard, if the standard had "not yet stable normative references", as these mi= ght change (and, render your implementation non-conformant)

The issue was that the SEC ADs, in reviewing OLSRv2, uncovered the n= eed for some more security work to be undertaken. I am sure that you agree t= hat "security is good", right? The decision at the time was to handle that i= n separate documents, add a normative reference to these documents from OLSR= v2, move OLSRv2 to the RFC Editor, and then focus on the security  docu= ments.

The authors of OLSRv2, the relevant WG, and t= he responsible ADs (RTG and SEC) are all aware of the state of advancement, a= nd the authors and the ADs are working hard (and, in unison) to move forward= . Indeed, the WG did its work and did WGLC the security documents a while ba= ck, the IESG reviewed them, gave their comments. The SEC ADs raised, each, a= discuss - discusses which, essentially, amounts to helping the authors get a= couple of (important) details right. Incidentally, I believe, resolution of= these discuss'es is immanent.

So this particular p= oint is very much normal - and desirable - IETF process. I'd almost say that= it's proof that the IETF process works ;)

Best,

Thomas

Sent from my iPad

=
My respond comment about area = ;management meeting of routing. This message is just a comment, bu= t I know that I was not active to participate in meetings, so this is m= y effort or opinion and it may improve the meeting in future&= nbsp;if you agree.

It seems that meeting discussions (as from minutes) = ;only for routing area documents, does not mention influences of other w= orks outside routing area. What about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I= think the meeting is not covering all important concerns or activities= within Routing Area. What about documents that are delayed for a year to be= come RFC like OLSRv2?

I request that if a DT is created in this area (Manet WG= has one now and maybe others) then it is good to mention it in th= e meeting, also mentioning the community complains related to area-work=  if there are.

AB

On Thursday, November 14, 2013, BRUNGARD, DEBO= RAH A wrote:
Hi,
 
Draft minutes are uploaded at:
 
Comments welcome.
 
Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides-
 
Deborah
 
 
____________________= ___________________________
routing-discussion mailing list<= /span>
routing-discu= ssion@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-di= scussion
= --Apple-Mail-D13B70B1-62EA-4323-A3C2-435C2F4822FE-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sat Nov 16 07:16:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789CC11E8168 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:16:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_72=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vtmk+vRvwHgC for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x232.google.com (mail-pd0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8711011E8145 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id p10so4707980pdj.37 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:16:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/Am1+52acECABYsv2ndWpzi3aMI1zbR6tmLiVzJ2fhE=; b=x8he6HX82IViWTtiS5qsfCB+mGarajd1qj2YsbMYLv7zZcbJIakbQ6PFcGrHjJR9V7 dGHqIq7gyVLT3u7UAV8ASiWdyKBEhzdvkXXpmI1/XjmQBAt7NfdBD/7HlLFU77J/v4Cf vqIslPuYhWku3tqjoLhTCGBlkW4KiT85EFSCcdHooDNgc0sH1uiq5uXjGwECae07EiVL S51mwHrLW7ipSb57V/ParjWZLxCjEHdaHb4hZEY+EHanKHfZdj25Lb3Jj0xGPvUL22rz ItFwHN6hhDjCn/mBe32zgYBN80fU7wwYUu6odeQrANTIwQvWUnJ8qgjptcPGEJYFtgim 7LZQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.197.104 with SMTP id it8mr11868076pbc.17.1384614985197; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.59.1 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:16:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <57E244B2-8723-49AE-A592-2B73B5D11C9B@thomasclausen.org> References: <57E244B2-8723-49AE-A592-2B73B5D11C9B@thomasclausen.org> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:16:25 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Routing Area Draft Minutes From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Thomas Heide Clausen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c9a257eedc04eb4cccd3 Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:16:26 -0000 --e89a8ff1c9a257eedc04eb4cccd3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks Thomas. I am part of WG/area but no information when OLSRv2 is RFC, sorry I may missed to find it, but if there is no expectation time then it may be delayed. The IETF process always work but the aim is to improve it without delays, or providing time period of such process. AB On Saturday, November 16, 2013, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: > Abdussalam, > > I will leave others to address the other points of your email, but I can > speak to part of this: > > On 16 nov. 2013, at 11:13, Abdussalam Baryun > > wrote: > > It seems that meeting discussions (as from minutes) only for routing area > documents, does not mention influences of other works outside routing area. > What about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I think the meeting is not > covering all important concerns or activities within Routing Area. What > about documents that are delayed for a year to become RFC like OLSRv2? > > > OLSRv2 is not published as it has normative references to other documents, > currently being finalized - and that, with the help of both SEC and RTG ADs. > > Indeed, the RFC Editor not publishing a document as long as its normative > references have not stabilized (which, for IETF documents, means that they > themselves have been published as RFCs) is both normal procedure, and is > highly desirable: you would, for example, not be able to claim conformance > to a standard, if the standard had "not yet stable normative references", > as these might change (and, render your implementation non-conformant) > > The issue was that the SEC ADs, in reviewing OLSRv2, uncovered the need > for some more security work to be undertaken. I am sure that you agree that > "security is good", right? The decision at the time was to handle that in > separate documents, add a normative reference to these documents from > OLSRv2, move OLSRv2 to the RFC Editor, and then focus on the security > documents. > > The authors of OLSRv2, the relevant WG, and the responsible ADs (RTG and > SEC) are all aware of the state of advancement, and the authors and the ADs > are working hard (and, in unison) to move forward. Indeed, the WG did its > work and did WGLC the security documents a while back, the IESG reviewed > them, gave their comments. The SEC ADs raised, each, a discuss - discusses > which, essentially, amounts to helping the authors get a couple of > (important) details right. Incidentally, I believe, resolution of these > discuss'es is immanent. > > So this particular point is very much normal - and desirable - IETF > process. I'd almost say that it's proof that the IETF process works ;) > > Best, > > Thomas > > Sent from my iPad > > My respond comment about area management meeting of routing. This message > is just a comment, but I know that I was not active to participate in > meetings, so this is my effort or opinion and it may improve the meeting in > future if you agree. > > It seems that meeting discussions (as from minutes) only for routing area > documents, does not mention influences of other works outside routing area. > What about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I think the meeting is not > covering all important concerns or activities within Routing Area. What > about documents that are delayed for a year to become RFC like OLSRv2? > > I request that if a DT is created in this area (Manet WG has one now and > maybe others) then it is good to mention it in the meeting, also > mentioning the community complains related to area-work if there are. > > AB > > On Thursday, November 14, 2013, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Draft minutes are uploaded at: >> *http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-rtgarea* >> >> Comments welcome. >> >> Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides- >> >> Deborah >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org 'routing-discussion@ietf.org');> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > --e89a8ff1c9a257eedc04eb4cccd3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Thomas.=A0I am part of WG/area=A0but no information when OLSRv2 is R= FC, sorry=A0I may missed to find=A0it,=A0but=A0if there is no expectation t= ime then it may be delayed. The IETF process always work but the aim is to = improve it without delays, or providing time period of such process.

AB

On Saturday, November 16, 2013, Thomas Heide Claus= en wrote:
Abdussa= lam,

I will leave others to address the other points of your= email, but I can speak to part of this:

On 16 nov= . 2013, at 11:13, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussa= lambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems that meeting= =A0discussions (as from minutes)=A0only for routing area documents,=A0does = not mention influences of other works outside routing area. What about WG c= hairs managing of groups or DTs? I think the meeting is not covering all im= portant=A0concerns or activities within Routing Area. What about documents = that are delayed for a year to become RFC like OLSRv2?

OLSRv2 is not published as it has normative refer= ences to other documents, currently being finalized - and that, with the he= lp of both SEC and RTG ADs.

Indeed, the RFC Editor= not publishing a document as long as its normative references have not sta= bilized (which, for IETF documents, means that they themselves have been pu= blished as RFCs) is both normal procedure, and is highly desirable: you wou= ld, for example, not be able to claim conformance to a standard, if the sta= ndard had "not yet stable normative references", as these might c= hange (and, render your implementation non-conformant)

The issue was that the SEC ADs, in reviewing OLSRv2, un= covered the need for some more security work to be undertaken. I am sure th= at you agree that "security is good", right? The decision at the = time was to handle that in separate documents, add a normative reference to= these documents from OLSRv2, move OLSRv2 to the RFC Editor, and then focus= on the security =A0documents.

The authors of OLSRv2, the relevant WG, and the respons= ible ADs (RTG and SEC) are all aware of the state of advancement, and the a= uthors and the ADs are working hard (and, in unison) to move forward. Indee= d, the WG did its work and did WGLC the security documents a while back, th= e IESG reviewed them, gave their comments. The SEC ADs raised, each, a disc= uss - discusses which, essentially, amounts to helping the authors get a co= uple of (important) details right. Incidentally, I believe, resolution of t= hese discuss'es is immanent.

So this particular point is very much normal - and desi= rable - IETF process. I'd almost say that it's proof that the IETF = process works ;)

Best,

Thomas

Sent from my iPad

My respond comment about area=A0management meeting of r= outing.=A0This message is just=A0a comment, but I know that I was not activ= e to participate in meetings,=A0so this is my=A0effort or=A0opinion and it = may=A0improve the meeting in future=A0if you agree.

It seems that meeting=A0discussions (as from minutes)=A0only= for routing area documents,=A0does not mention influences of other works o= utside routing area. What about WG chairs managing of groups or DTs? I thin= k the meeting is not covering all important=A0concerns or activities within= Routing Area. What about documents that are delayed for a year to become R= FC like OLSRv2?

I=A0request that if a DT is created in this area (Manet WG h= as one now=A0and maybe others)=A0then it is good to mention it in the meeti= ng, also mentioning=A0the community complains related to area-work=A0if the= re are.

AB

On Thursday, November 14, 2013, BRUNGARD, DEB= ORAH A wrote:
Hi,
=A0
Draft minutes are uploaded at:
=A0
Comments welcome.
=A0
Much thanks everyone for submitting your WG status slides-
=A0
Deborah
=A0
=A0
___________________= ____________________________
routing-discussion mailing lis= t
routing-discussion@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion<= /a>
--e89a8ff1c9a257eedc04eb4cccd3--