From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Feb 6 00:31:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487CC1A0090; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 00:31:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vE2WHsaSyHiY; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 00:31:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B941A006A; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 00:31:31 -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 s168VRXt026754; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:31:27 GMT Received: from 950129200 (idanet5.ida.ing.tu-bs.de [134.169.115.102]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s168VQWu026742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:31:26 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , Subject: Handling the situation with two Juniper routing ADs Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:31:22 -0000 Message-ID: <00b401cf2315$d25e3b30$771ab190$@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: Ac8jFaz50+gj4WZoTWaSyYKgNq/nHw== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' , Alia Atlas , iesg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:31:34 -0000 All, It is relatively unusual for two ADs in the same area to have the same company affiliation. Although, of course, ADs discard their affiliations in consideration of all elements of their AD role, we are aware that this situation may cause some concern and unease. Therefore we have decided to err on the side of caution, remind everyone of the normal practices that take into account affiliations, and put in place some operating guidelines that we will endeavor to follow while this situation exists. We should note that this situation will not last for more than the next year: Adrian absolutely will not be seeking reselection as an AD at the end of this year (March 2015). First, whenever anyone has a concern of actual or potential bias by us as ADs, we will encourage such a concern to be reported to us and to the IETF chair. In such circumstances, we will supply the chair with as much information as we have and will abide by the chair's decision as to what action we should take. We would like to remind you of the following standard practices: - As has become the normal practice in the Routing Area, the ADs will depend heavily on the diverse Routing Area Directorate to provide public, non-biased and critical reviews of all Routing Area documents. We will be conscious of the affiliation of the reviewers when requesting reviews. - Different affiliations between the working group chairs of any single working group is always considered desirable. Here are our additional operating guidelines for the following rare cases: - When a document has authors with only one affiliation and that is ours, even though there is a mitigating effect of WG chairs and document shepherds, we will ask another AD to act as responsible AD. This may have the effect of slowing the progress of such documents. - Whenever there are contentious IPR issues related to a document in the Routing Area we will seek public guidance from another AD. Whenever the contentious IPR is owned by Juniper we will ask another AD to act as responsible AD. - Whenever there is significant disagreement within a working group in which there is a strong view held by participants affiliated with Juniper, and where the AD is called upon to guide or instruct the chairs, we will always seek public input from another AD. - In the event of any complaints made against WG chairs in the Routing Area where those chairs are affiliated to Juniper we will always seek input from other another AD with as much public visibility as the complaint. Please be aware that for Adrian this represents a change in normal automatic processing that he has developed over 5 years. For Alia the challenge is that she will be on the steep learning curve that all new ADs go through. Please excuse any fumbles, draw them to our attention and allow us to rectify them. May we both take this opportunity to thanks Stewart for his excellent service as an AD over the last four years. Alia and Adrian From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat Feb 8 11:43:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC3B1A0565; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:43:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.917 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pDhY7l4mSQrH; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:43:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164EA1A0591; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:43:47 -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 s18JhkZw018759; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:43:46 GMT Received: from 950129200 (13.17.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.17.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s18Jhi7Q018746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:43:46 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , Subject: Draft deadline for London Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:43:40 -0000 Message-ID: <002701cf2506$129e00d0$37da0270$@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: Ac8lBWb4sLALW+CwRE6CGG/MS4Bd8Q== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: No X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:43:51 -0000 Not sure how or why this happened, but please note that the draft deadline for IETF-89 is > 2014-02-14 (Friday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all > drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF ID > Submission Tool. That is a Friday night, not the usual Monday morning. You have been warned! Please spread the word. Adrian From nobody Wed Feb 19 13:12:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7451A0226; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:12:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.917 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VNwNsS5qzHA3; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:12:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6711A05EB; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:12:06 -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 s1JLBwh4004559; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:11:58 GMT Received: from 950129200 (13.17.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.17.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1JLBTMM004288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:11:57 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Subject: Routin ADs' Open Office Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:11:29 -0000 Message-ID: <01f401cf2db7$395ff9d0$ac1fed70$@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: Ac8tk6h6dTE/0gQvTOawghWhtsWYYw== Content-Language: en-gb Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/1V8FKMvET8DgIydrqAofLNjCIuE Cc: Alia Atlas , stbryant@cisco.com X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:12:09 -0000 Hi, After the "blip" in Vancouver, we are back in our usual Sunday afternoon slot. Please come and see us to discuss issues with your work, the area, routing in the real world, or the IETF. The office will be open from 14.30 to 16.00 on Sunday March 2nd. We'll be in the IESG breakout room. I'll send a note to say which room that is just as soon as I know. This will be a special, bumper edition of the ADs' Open Office with 3 Routing ADs present. Cheers, Adrian