From tk at abusix.com Wed Nov 2 13:18:35 2011 From: tk at abusix.com (Tobias Knecht) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:18:35 +0100 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text Message-ID: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> Hello everybody, was nice meeting you on Monday. I took the chance yesterday and had a look at the proposal with Denis, who helped me to clean up the technical wording. I think this version is pretty near to a publishable proposal. Nevertheless if there are questions or suggestions for different wording. Feel free. @Brian: Next steps after TF review? Review through Emilio or AA-WG Mailinglist? Thanks, Tobias -- abusix -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: acm-policy-proposal.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Mon Nov 7 12:17:16 2011 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:17:16 +0000 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> Message-ID: <4EB7BE3C.7040008@heanet.ie> Tobias, "Tobias Knecht" wrote the following on 02/11/2011 12:18: > Hello everybody, > > was nice meeting you on Monday. I took the chance yesterday and had a > look at the proposal with Denis, who helped me to clean up the technical > wording. I think this version is pretty near to a publishable proposal. > Nevertheless if there are questions or suggestions for different > wording. Feel free. So, are there any of either? > @Brian: Next steps after TF review? Review through Emilio or AA-WG > Mailinglist? The next step after this is to start following the PDP. :) So, we put the proposal into the RIPE format and submit it, it then follows on down through the various steps. Brian. From tk at abusix.com Tue Nov 8 10:57:48 2011 From: tk at abusix.com (Tobias Knecht) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:57:48 +0100 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <4EB7BE3C.7040008@heanet.ie> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> <4EB7BE3C.7040008@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <4EB8FD1C.3010008@abusix.com> Hi, > So, are there any of either? No one? >> @Brian: Next steps after TF review? Review through Emilio or AA-WG >> Mailinglist? > > The next step after this is to start following the PDP. :) So, we put > the proposal into the RIPE format and submit it, it then follows on down > through the various steps. Okay perfect. I attached a PDP Template using version to this email. Shall we use the ACM TF as an author and mention all the members of the Task Force? Thanks, Tobias -- abusix -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: acm-tf-policy-proposal-08-11-2011.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Tue Nov 8 14:59:01 2011 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:59:01 +0000 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <4EB8FD1C.3010008@abusix.com> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> <4EB7BE3C.7040008@heanet.ie> <4EB8FD1C.3010008@abusix.com> Message-ID: <4EB935A5.1020007@heanet.ie> "Tobias Knecht" wrote the following on 08/11/2011 09:57: > Hi, > >> So, are there any of either? > > No one? Apparently not. >>> @Brian: Next steps after TF review? Review through Emilio or AA-WG >>> Mailinglist? >> >> The next step after this is to start following the PDP. :) So, we put >> the proposal into the RIPE format and submit it, it then follows on down >> through the various steps. > > Okay perfect. I attached a PDP Template using version to this email. > > Shall we use the ACM TF as an author and mention all the members of the > Task Force? Right, this is where it all gets a bit tricky. I don't think both Tobias and I can both be listed as authors, because that would leave nobody to steer it through the working group, as I understand things. My suggestion would be to have Tobias as the author (along with anyone else from the TF who would like their name to explicitly be at the top of the document) and go with what the PDO have suggested to us, which is to put the TF in the attribution section. Does anyone not like this idea? Thanks, Brian. From tk at abusix.com Tue Nov 8 15:31:23 2011 From: tk at abusix.com (Tobias Knecht) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:31:23 +0100 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <4EB935A5.1020007@heanet.ie> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> <4EB7BE3C.7040008@heanet.ie> <4EB8FD1C.3010008@abusix.com> <4EB935A5.1020007@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <4EB93D3B.4010306@abusix.com> Hi, >> Shall we use the ACM TF as an author and mention all the members of the >> Task Force? > > Right, this is where it all gets a bit tricky. I don't think both Tobias > and I can both be listed as authors, because that would leave nobody to > steer it through the working group, as I understand things. My > suggestion would be to have Tobias as the author (along with anyone else > from the TF who would like their name to explicitly be at the top of the > document) and go with what the PDO have suggested to us, which is to put > the TF in the attribution section. > > Does anyone not like this idea? I'm okay with that idea. I would just mention that it was an outcome of the Task Force if that is not leading into any troubles. This helps to support the proposal and gives an answer to the "What did they do in this ACM-TF?" Question. Otherwise I'm completely okay with that. Thanks, Tobias -- abusix -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From vesely at tana.it Tue Nov 8 20:04:52 2011 From: vesely at tana.it (Alessandro Vesely) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:04:52 +0100 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <4EB93D3B.4010306@abusix.com> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> <4EB7BE3C.7040008@heanet.ie> <4EB8FD1C.3010008@abusix.com> <4EB935A5.1020007@heanet.ie> <4EB93D3B.4010306@abusix.com> Message-ID: <4EB97D54.9080902@tana.it> On 08/Nov/11 15:31, Tobias Knecht wrote: >>> Shall we use the ACM TF as an author and mention all the members of the >>> Task Force? >> >> My suggestion would be to have Tobias as the author [...] > > I'm okay with that idea. I would just mention that it was an outcome of > the Task Force if that is not leading into any troubles. This helps to > support the proposal and gives an answer to the "What did they do in > this ACM-TF?" Question. Can't the ACM-TF be mentioned as if it were Tobias' affiliation? From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Mon Nov 14 18:01:07 2011 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:01:07 +0000 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <4EB97D54.9080902@tana.it> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> <4EB7BE3C.7040008@heanet.ie> <4EB8FD1C.3010008@abusix.com> <4EB935A5.1020007@heanet.ie> <4EB93D3B.4010306@abusix.com> <4EB97D54.9080902@tana.it> Message-ID: <4EC14953.8020102@heanet.ie> "Alessandro Vesely" wrote the following on 08/11/2011 19:04: > On 08/Nov/11 15:31, Tobias Knecht wrote: >>>> Shall we use the ACM TF as an author and mention all the members of the >>>> Task Force? >>> >>> My suggestion would be to have Tobias as the author [...] >> >> I'm okay with that idea. I would just mention that it was an outcome of >> the Task Force if that is not leading into any troubles. This helps to >> support the proposal and gives an answer to the "What did they do in >> this ACM-TF?" Question. > > Can't the ACM-TF be mentioned as if it were Tobias' affiliation? Sorry, I never responded to this. That may be possible, there is a slight dance involved as I mentioned and I'd prefer to avoid that if at all possible. If nobody else wishes to be explicitly listed as an author, which is fine, we'll go ahead with Tobias' name on it. Thanks, Brian. From pk at DENIC.DE Mon Nov 28 12:39:54 2011 From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:39:54 +0100 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> Message-ID: <20111128113954.GG9075@x27.adm.denic.de> Colleagues, > Nevertheless if there are questions or suggestions for different > wording. Feel free. > > @Brian: Next steps after TF review? Review through Emilio or AA-WG > Mailinglist? so, with respect to the proposal, what is the status of the task force? I feel a bit uneasy withthe direction the discussion has taken on the AA WG list and also do not think the technical consensus has been reflected completely correct (and I'm not talking about 'mandatory' here), maybe because questions on that list went beyond our own thinking. With apologies for responding late (IETF and busy weeks around that) I also think the proposal is deperately missing a problem statement and we'd be better off if there were otehr arguments against the proposal than 'none' - since given the question of migration and transition, there definitely are. That said, unless we attempt to have an ongoing TF discussion i'll take the liberty to engage into the discussion on the AA list. -Peter From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Mon Nov 28 14:06:27 2011 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:06:27 +0000 Subject: [acm-tf] Next Version of the proposal text In-Reply-To: <20111128113954.GG9075@x27.adm.denic.de> References: <4EB1351B.8020405@abusix.com> <20111128113954.GG9075@x27.adm.denic.de> Message-ID: <4ED38753.4010703@heanet.ie> Peter, "Peter Koch" wrote the following on 28/11/2011 11:39: > Colleagues, > >> Nevertheless if there are questions or suggestions for different >> wording. Feel free. >> >> @Brian: Next steps after TF review? Review through Emilio or AA-WG >> Mailinglist? > > so, with respect to the proposal, what is the status of the task force? > I feel a bit uneasy withthe direction the discussion has taken on > the AA WG list and also do not think the technical consensus has > been reflected completely correct (and I'm not talking about 'mandatory' here), > maybe because questions on that list went beyond our own thinking. From my point of view the TF is still active as there are a few possible ways out of this that I see. 1) The proposal is accepted and the TF reviews its mandate and sees if there is other work to do as we discussed in Vienna. 2) The proposal is rejected and the TF undertakes to work on it again. 3) The proposal is rejected or accepted and the TF decides they've done what they can and should disband. I think that once we released the proposal it was going to take on some life of its own, but I think I, at least, would appreciate more detail on what you're unhappy about? > With apologies for responding late (IETF and busy weeks around that) > I also think the proposal is deperately missing a problem statement > and we'd be better off if there were otehr arguments against the > proposal than 'none' - since given the question of migration and > transition, there definitely are. Tobias will, I think, incorporate this into what will doubtless be a required revision of the proposal. I believe he's happy to hear from the TF and/or the wider community. > That said, unless we attempt to have an ongoing TF discussion i'll take > the liberty to engage into the discussion on the AA list. I was not planning on reopening the discussion here, to be honest. I'm happy with TF members engaging in the discussion with the community on the mailing list wearing whatever hats they choose. Brian.