Best regards, Mohammed Shahnawaz Sr. Engineer - Fixed Communication Dept. HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT (OMAN) LLC. Tel: +968 24489004, Ext: 149 Fax: +968 24489378 GSM: +968 92637431 ---------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: ietf-request@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-request@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 8:00 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 38, Issue 40 Send Ietf mailing list submissions to ietf@xxxxxxxx To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ietf-request@xxxxxxxx You can reach the person managing the list at ietf-owner@xxxxxxxx When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Autoreply: Last Call: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements (Requirements for a DKIM Signing Practices Protocol) to Informational RFC (jburguet@xxxxxxx) 2. Udaya V Kumar is out of the office. (Udaya V Kumar) 3. Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago) (John C Klensin) 4. Re: Last Call: draft-hutzler-spamops (Email Submission: Access and Accountability) to BCP (Chris Newman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:13:12 +0200 From: jburguet@xxxxxxx Subject: Autoreply: Last Call: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements (Requirements for a DKIM Signing Practices Protocol) to Informational RFC To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Message-ID: <B0001829932@> I am out (on vacation :) ) until next 16 July. See you then. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:32:58 -0600 From: Udaya V Kumar <ukumar@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Udaya V Kumar is out of the office. To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Message-ID: <OF524E728E.A90F2363-ON87257302.006B638A-87257302.006B638A@xxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I will be out of the office starting 06/22/2007 and will not return until 07/15/2007. I will respond to your message when I return as I will have limited access to my mail. Please contact Pamela lee (palee@xxxxxxxxxx/415-606-8754) and Carmen Allen(cpallen@xxxxxxxxxx/609-751-2062) for immediate attention. Thx - Udaya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf/attachments/20070622/25a7f8f7/attachment .html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:00:00 -0400 From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago) To: Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <3AD52810CF7D49E1CD09B7BF@xxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --On Sunday, 17 June, 2007 22:43 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> IMO, you have to have a structure/process/rules that assumes >> people are generally trying to do the Right Thing. For checks >> and balances, you then also need appeals procedures and a >> willingness to speak up and challenge parties when there is >> evidence of bad decision making. > > Agreed. I guess I challenge when there is an appearance of > bad decision making. I would rather not wait until things get > out of hand and then attempt use of the hammer of appeals. > That is just my personal preference. For reasons associated with, but not identical to, Joel's reasons for objecting to determinism, I think the position you express here is ultimately dangerous. I believe that we should be selecting IESG and IAB members who can and will exhibit very high levels of technical maturity and breath, and consistent good judgment. I believe that being sufficiently mature and self-aware to avoid either substituting one's own judgment for that of the community or imposing one's personal preferences as a blocking requirement is a corollary of that selection criterion. If we cannot find enough people like that, we should shrink the relevant bodies and, if necessary, the amount of work the IETF tries to do, rather than trying to get by on third-rate people. If, being human, IESG or IAB members occasionally slip up, or need to be asked to consider actions a second time and more carefully, I think the appeals process is reasonable and appropriate, not some sort of "hammer" that must be used only in rare and particularly egregious circumstances. I note, as others have noted, that most appeals end at the first stage or two. I believe that is a sign of health. Similarly, if an IESG or IAB member turns out to have been a seriously bad choice --because the Nomcom, despite its best efforts, put someone in place who doesn't come up to the criteria and expectations above-- or burns out and starts consistently exhibiting behavior that doesn't meet that standard, then I think we should, as a community, encourage them to step down (IMO, one of the reasons we don't see recalls more often is that, if someone insisted on staying on after having clearly lost the confidence of the community, whatever Nomcom made the appointment would have made a _really_ bad decision -- arguably much worse than any we have seen). So my model is that we give the I* a lot of discretion, we appoint members of whom we have very high expectations about the technical ability and general wisdom to apply judgment, and then we hold them to those expectations. If, instead, we reduce that discretion, create and take advantage for more second-guessing over essentially trivial things, and try to rely more on procedures (and "determinism") rather than judgment, we will end up recruiting and appointing the sorts of people who like working in the environment we create for them. And, in the long term, I think that causes a catastrophe (in the pattern of a number of bodies who operate by procedure rather than judgment and wisdom. I like what we have a lot better, even on the days when I feel obligated to seem to be the voice of obnoxious opposition. john ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:48:47 -0700 From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-hutzler-spamops (Email Submission: Access and Accountability) to BCP To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Message-ID: <8DE229A88A44751115E8AF86@[10.1.110.5]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii My last call comment as a technical contributor (apologies for the lateness): Overall, this is a very important document which I support. I'm not fond of the current title because I believe it will cause the document to be ignored by the people who most need to read it. I suggest: "Operational Requirements for Email Submission" The best way to improve this document otherwise would be by deleting text from the document and trimming it down to just the best practice requirements and recommendations. Move the descriptive text about architecture and how the email system works somewhere else (e.g. Dave's email architecture document). Operators will run MSAs on port 25 if they need to, so it's unnecessary to make a normative recommendation about that. At some point it may cease to be useful to run an MSA on port 25 so requiring an update to this document when that happens is short-sighted. - Chris The IESG wrote on 6/6/07 10:32 -0400: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'Email Submission: Access and Accountability ' > <draft-hutzler-spamops-07.txt> as a BCP > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2007-06-20. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Note that this is a second run of the Last Call. The first Last Call > happened in 2005, and the current version tried to address all the > comments received then. Taking into account the amount of time since the > first Last Call the Area Director and the editors decided to run again a > two weeks Last Call. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hutzler-spamops-07.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=1167 3 > &rfc_flag=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf End of Ietf Digest, Vol 38, Issue 40 ************************************ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf