Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

["todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Ohhhh wait - its the ISOC who is incorporated and not the IETF... Sorry...

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>
To: "Stephen Hanna" <shanna at juniper.net>; <nea at ietf.org>
Cc: <chair at ietf.org>; "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras at wilmerhale.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals


> That's one of the problems,  see that code of conduct DOES effect the IETF
> unless there is some formal agreement between the Incorporated IETF and 
> the
> ISOC to allow the IETF to violate the terms and conditions under which the
> NTIA MOU was given to the ISOC, i.e. that being the only reason the IETF
> exists as it does today as a Business Unit of the IETF.
>
> I am also taking this up with the IETF's counsel and the Chair, but I 
> wanted
> to see how this WG reacted.
>
> I will transfer anymore commentary to the IETF at IETF.ORG mailing list.
>
> Thanks for responding.
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stephen Hanna" <shanna at juniper.net>
> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>; <nea at ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:14 PM
> Subject: RE: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals
>
>
> Are you referring to this code of conduct?
>
> http://www.isoc.org/members/codeconduct.shtml
>
> If so, this does not seem to be a set of rules for
> IETF activities. It instead says that it is a "code
> of conduct" intended to "indicate the standard of
> professional behaviour to which ISOC members aspire,
> and which is intended to be an example to Internet
> professionals as a whole."
>
> The principles espoused in this code seem to be
> admirable but they do not seem to be "rules" that
> are binding on all IETF activities. If you can
> point to an RFC or other official IETF document
> that says otherwise, please send the URL.
>
> If an extended discussion of this topic ensues,
> I'll have to refer it to another email list.
> There is nothing NEA-specific to the discussion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:26 PM
> To: Stephen Hanna; nea at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals
>
> Steve, thanks for responding but what I asked isn't what you answered.
> What
> I asked was if the ISOC rules applied here.
>
> If the answer is NO then I need to know that. So the question is
> re-asked
> again...
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stephen Hanna" <shanna at juniper.net>
> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>; "??" <jiake.cn at huawei.com>;
>
> <nea at ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals
>
>
> The same rules apply to NEA that apply to other IETF efforts.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:53 AM
> To: Stephen Hanna; ??; nea at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals
>
> Steve - do the ISOC code of conduct rules bring into play any NEA
> issues?
> including the IP support requirements? I ask this because those rules do
>
> apply to other IETF efforts.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stephen Hanna" <shanna at juniper.net>
> To: "??" <jiake.cn at huawei.com>; <nea at ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals
>
>
>> Yes, please join in the email discussion. The NEA WG
>> chairs will look to the email discussion to determine
>> WG consensus, not to in-person discussions. That's
>> the IETF way. So I'm sorry that you can't come to
>> Philadelphia but this should not prevent your active
>> participation in the discussion on this topic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nea-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> ??
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:50 AM
>> To: nea at ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals
>>
>> Hi, folks
>> I am sorry to tell you guys that I will be absent from this meeting
>> due to the failure of VISA application. But I think I can join in the
>> discussion via e-mail if I have any specific comments after reading
> these
>> new proposals.
>>
>> Jack.Chia
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nea-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Susan
>> Thomson (sethomso)
>> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:36 PM
>> To: nea at ietf.org
>> Subject: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals
>>
>> In response to the request for proposals for the PA and PB protocols,
> the
>> NEA WG has received three drafts: PA-TNC, PA-TNC Security, and PB-TNC.
> We
>> need to decide whether to adopt these as WG drafts.
>>
>> The drafts are:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sangster-nea-pa-tnc-00.txt
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sahita-nea-pb-tnc-00.txt
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sangster-nea-pa-tnc-security-00.txt
>>
>> Please review these documents to see whether they provide a good basis
> for
>> the protocol work to be done and whether they should be adopted as WG
>> documents. Remember that, as  with any initial version of a WG draft,
>> there
>> will be opportunity for updating the protocol specifications later in
> the
>> process. The main question here is not "are the proposals perfect?"
> but
>> "are
>> the proposals a good basis for starting work on PA and PB?"
>>
>> With this in mind, please provide comments to the mailing list at
>> nea at ietf.org and/or be prepared to make these comments at the upcoming
> WG
>> meeting in Philadelphia. An email comment on this topic could be as
> simple
>> as "I have reviewed proposal X and believe that we should accept it as
> a
>> WG
>> draft", or as complex as a long explanation of a problem that is not
>> adequately addressed.
>>
>> You can also provide more detailed comments and corrections to the
>> protocol
>> now, but these will be retained and considered later in the process.
> The
>> intent is not to go into detailed discussions of relatively minor
> issues
>> at
>> this point. Major issues are fine to discuss if they relate to the
>> question
>> of whether we should accept the proposals as WG drafts.
>>
>> You might ask "what is the alternative to accepting these documents as
> WG
>> drafts?" We could decide to reject one or more of the drafts and
> solicit
>> more proposals, request a major change or clarification to a proposal
>> before
>> we're willing to accept it, or other options.
>>
>> Please send comments on this topic before the NEA WG meeting at IETF
> 71 if
>> possible (currently scheduled for Tuesday, March 11 at 9 AM ET), and
> no
>> later than 5 PM on Wednesday, March 19. This should allow the WG
> chairs to
>> judge consensus in a timely manner and allow the WG to move on to the
> hard
>> work of developing the PA and PB protocol specifications.
>>
>> Thanks for your careful attention to this matter.
>>
>> Susan Thomson and Steve Hanna
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nea mailing list
>> Nea at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nea mailing list
>> Nea at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nea mailing list
>> Nea at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nea mailing list
> Nea at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea 

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea