RE: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, the RSE, IETF Management Styles, and traffic volume on this list.
"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Thu, 04 July 2019 22:02 UTC
Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD061201A0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=lvC/Ryj8; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Kr9Ck9Kw
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 3GSamPVR20pW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BD2B1200D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8989; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562277741; x=1563487341; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rvEjj5Bzn4PVNMhylU1e+8R+fRcbf8sLleX2H2gRwAM=; b=lvC/Ryj85ApahdVDXd5YgnnpSXETd8SNmcjX9ZKFvEd3b/2u+06ACy1D VWGUHQ8TsG7y8InVFXFU1QavRJZqQQosIW1R3cr3zr5GqL9f9NLtpeA+I 7gHymcmsT6ZSLJ60hgdRrKg31seNrs9bSvh+Mo8i/xw4bfxrKkYX8T2yA I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:gzf7uxZ+3kpIttFygOFmLwL/LSx94ef9IxIV55w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gebRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavwcC0+AMNEfFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DqFAAudh5d/5JdJa1mHgEGBwaBZ4FEJAUnA4E/IAQLKAqEdIJlA45JTIIPfpZIgUKBEANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAKCLCM4EwEDAQEEAQECAQVtijcBC4VKAQEBAQMSKAYBASoCDAsEAgEIEQQBAR8FCzIdCAIEEwgMBweCNYI2Ax0BAgGbbgKBOIhggiOCeQEBBYUVGIISCYE0iRaCSReBQD+BEUaBTkkHLj6BF4J5AQELBgIBIIM6ggQiqkkJAoIXin9ziCyCLIsqiiKNMJc7AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFnISo9cXAVO4JsgUkBdwwXFG8BA4JHilIBcoEpiwqBMQGBIAEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,452,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="502112527"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Jul 2019 22:02:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x64M2JU7006977 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 22:02:19 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:02:18 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:02:18 -0500
Received: from NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:02:18 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nZZK33sTtTmdTOyY6sLDrhNPV+N8+JuItLbSg7PX+Qg=; b=Kr9Ck9KwRidUFcOsR5cAoOZSGWLyZibwTZCC7yZYPql7xxHeNX/OYDP/adXlUV86at/6d+2AErJuTfneYUkkVAAvmGERQyv4YBCdyh3XxfsDnKsFLXbOVQk8FdifvfbniqPQAuE1HpnPz3ytn5SP8jgQFa7Nwb5ky1JYHVLI0oY=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.227.28) by BYAPR11MB3190.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.127.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.17; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 22:02:17 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d49f:908f:3655:e372]) by BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d49f:908f:3655:e372%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 22:02:17 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, the RSE, IETF Management Styles, and traffic volume on this list.
Thread-Topic: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, the RSE, IETF Management Styles, and traffic volume on this list.
Thread-Index: AQHVMn1AFJaaJ86iykKuRiR4/C3dx6a6rAFA
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 22:02:16 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB263177F83563FC5B63D09824B5FA0@BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <0856af71-4d84-09d1-834d-12ac7252420c@network-heretics.com> <CAL02cgQ9qWVUTPW=Cpx=r32k3i1PLgfp5ax0pKMdH0nKObcKTg@mail.gmail.c om> <e8d28a7f-128d-e8d0-17d3-146c6ff5b546@joelhalpern.com> <CAHw9_i+UBs85P+gjcF6BJd1_WD2qFrrYCnXb4rtcG9Hepqm37w@mail.gmail.com> <796c1f6c-cd67-2cd5-9a98-9059a0e516f8@network-heretics.com> <20190704013009.dlifopcbm2umnqo7@mx4.yitter.info> <b18809df-ee98-fb29-b6c4-04ed579e163a@network-heretics.com> <20190704052335.GF3508@localhost> <911a7af5-071a-ce88-527d-70dfe939b256@network-heretics.com> <6317584D-4C9B-46E9-8197-D2A488701868@fugue.com> <20190704140552.GE49950@hanna.meerval.net> <35880DA835A7565D0201CC91@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <35880DA835A7565D0201CC91@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rwilton@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [82.15.79.32]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3a61a970-66bc-4356-cf8b-08d700cb4755
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB3190;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB3190:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB3190471DB3154E78B61B5B1CB5FA0@BYAPR11MB3190.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273;
x-forefront-prvs: 0088C92887
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(186003)(486006)(53936002)(6436002)(71190400001)(25786009)(71200400001)(76176011)(5640700003)(99286004)(53546011)(6506007)(6916009)(14454004)(478600001)(33656002)(68736007)(2501003)(6246003)(2906002)(6116002)(256004)(2351001)(14444005)(476003)(11346002)(3846002)(446003)(8936002)(102836004)(5660300002)(229853002)(66946007)(1730700003)(26005)(66556008)(66066001)(64756008)(66446008)(66476007)(81166006)(52536014)(81156014)(76116006)(73956011)(55016002)(74316002)(305945005)(86362001)(8676002)(66574012)(9686003)(7736002)(7696005)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB3190; H:BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: tobHwmymzPXPStum3sCBexkB618DsRXnLbHy5KWizwBmqqSMbcL9aMw02WYV/Piaqr1UE7pIZU6XgUuduRzNICkGsTetYDuE9FexyCWYO2NyotzAShMIYO7Ph0tceeXXCmhi4avj9VJaJI3sEn1YoWa9EaSFLAZNxdyRIPiEo2NZ+nbFEPQ/rZ5lTsMs+Kgnu3HG7cJ0TKjocIb5utOvG5l5pbeoyNgyOIIaZcjxmZ4ikA65BBmzsjSjW3R4MSYird8/AK0134wEb1DLjv7JTbjajZUqiIu+u9+6lBwQOm1P7WxXCUGFd3Nt+dSmW2ht1v6Lz9OrAiuLJTohIZvPVvDpVA3sLNTrut442+Sgbc3p5ze7szbbXdOYbw33q++LHjgMygPFv9ygGDxInqddlr9efmYtnpiMZyW2+6xfmPE=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3a61a970-66bc-4356-cf8b-08d700cb4755
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jul 2019 22:02:17.0082 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: rwilton@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB3190
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.25, xch-aln-015.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M-TAqX9agPQNp1d62VMWbXbTRAQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 22:02:25 -0000
I've been wondering for days whether I should comment on these threads, and whether any benefit can be gained by my commenting. [John, this response isn't directly in response to your email, it was just a convenient point to reply.] Probably in contrast to most other participants in this thread, I still regard myself as a relatively IETF newcomer (first meeting was IETF 93, and I've attended the majority since). So, I am going to give my perceptions of this thread as a relative newcomer in the hope that it might be useful input to the wider community. My comments are not intended to offend anyone, and I apologise in advance in any offence is taken. [But perhaps it also worth noting that nobody is forced to read an email, anyone can stop reading at time, delete the email, suppress the thread, etc.] I have not had time to read all the messages, perhaps not even the majority of them. I, and I expect many others, do not have the time to do this, or perhaps instead wish to spend their limited time on other things. My principle view is that technical criticism is vitally important when engineering the complex systems that we all work on. My perception is that the majority of folks actively participating in IETF do so because they care deeply about the technology we work on, and are trying to reach the best solution (for some definition of best - I suspect that differences in this definition may be part of the reason why discussions can become so heated at times). But in my personal experience, I would say that I am more receptive to someone's feedback if it is given in a polite and constructive way. Given that I prefer a constructive critique of my work rather than comments that are unduly terse or aggressively negative, then I strive (but don't necessary always succeed) to also give feedback in a positive way. I would go further and say that the people that I find most inspirational at IETF are those experienced folk who are knowledgeable, welcoming and supportive of newcomers, and receptive to new ideas. Conversely, I acknowledge that some individuals tend to give very direct and terse feedback. When I was a newcomer I initially found this feedback to be combative and abrasive, which seemed to slow down progress, so I question whether this really is a more efficient way to get to a good technical solution. Admittedly, over time, I gained a level of respect for some of those individuals, and probably think that their style of feedback is more a personality trait than intended as a personal attack, so I tolerate the direct and terse feedback from these individuals to the extent that I would actively seek/request their feedback. I do question whether airing these grievances on the main IETF mailing list is the best place for this. My impression is that they don't paint IETF in a particularly positive light. Note, I'm not advocating that these issues shouldn't be discussed in public, but perhaps there could be an "ietf-constructive-feedback" mail alias that these sorts of discussions could be directed to. Everyone still has the same opportunity to comment openly and publicly, but it prevents these discussions from dominating over the other important discussions on the main ietf mailing list. In a similar vein, I also ponder the motives of the questions asked at the "Open Mic" sessions in the plenary. Sometimes the questions seem to be raising a valid point that is important to be discussed openly, but other times they come across as older/experienced folk having a public dig at the IESG or IAB for something that hasn't gone quite as it should. Again, I question whether the most effective way of giving this type of feedback is in the plenary, or whether a private email (and perhaps short meeting) with some members of the appropriate group might be a more effective way of getting the message across in a slightly less combative way, at least as a first effort. On a positive note, I look forward to seeing everyone in Montreal, and for those attending the social event, I would be happy to debate the merits of direct vs polite criticism over a beer or two at the social event. Kind regards, Rob -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: 04 July 2019 16:28 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, the RSE, IETF Management Styles, and traffic volume on this list. Hi. I don't know if anyone else is having the same problem, but I'm having tremendous difficulty following all of the messages in this thread, much less the thread about the happenings surrounding the RFC Editor function. That includes the side-thread about, e.g., whether one can describe, with facts and careful reasoning, an idea or action as stupid without insulting the intelligence of whomever was advocating it. Many, many messages. If only to reduce the odds of re-inventing and repeating what has been said before, I'm trying to read everything in a thread before I start a response but it means I am running hours, sometimes days, behind. It is especially problematic because I'm also trying to find time to get some technical work done that much of the IETF seems to think it important as long as _someone else_ puts in the time to understand the issues and do the work [1]. I've has it suggested to me off list that maybe most of those participating actively in the discussions either don't have technical work to do or have too much time on their hands. I'd rather think that priorities (and levels of support for IETF work) are different, but I do suggest, as Randy Bush has pointed out a couple of times, maybe it would be better if people took a deep breath, let some of these discussions sink in, and actual get some technical work done, including trying to finish I-Ds before Monday's posting deadline and then actually reading enough of those drafts to make IETF 106 more productive. Or perhaps, if these topics are really important enough, we should call off the IETF 105 agenda and devote the meeting to them, without conflicts and one day per topic. I understand the logistical problems with trying to do that in one large room but perhaps smaller group parallel sessions and discussions on the same subject (with people allocated at random or when rooms fill up) and then summaries of conclusions would work even better. In any event, it is probably worth noting and remembering that these very long threads on the IETF list get participation from a very small fraction of the IETF community. Whether others tune out after looking at one message or a dozen, we aren't hearing from them. Because these topics have effects on the entire IETF, how it works, and how it is perceived, real IETF consensus --across the entire spectrum of IETF contributors and other materially affected parties-- is important if decisions are to be made. It is difficult and perhaps impossible to draw inferences about consensus across the IETF when only a handful (or two) of people are participating. It is even closer to impossible if those people participating in a way that discourages others from getting involved, however unintentional (and respectful) the mechanisms that are being used. A more substantive note or two follow, but I believe the above is important and it saddens me that it didn't come from someone in "the leadership". john [1] I'm not trying to be cryptic, just to keep the above short. The very high-level summary of the topic area might be best described as a set of questions. Do any of you, or your organizations, colleagues, or customers, use a language that cannot be written properly in ASCII characters and even occasionally want to write it properly while using the Internet? (Note that list of languages includes English.) Would you, or your organizations, colleagues, or customers find it helpful to be able to use identifiers, user names, or other descriptors or mnemonics that are not tied to English? Do you think it is important that everyone have confidence that strings that should compare equal do so and that ones that shouldn't, don't? Do you understand that the problems the other questions imply are hard and require either significant digging in or suggest that the IETF should publicly give up and accept the consequences? If your answer to any of those questions is "yes", why are you not digging in personally and why are you allowing the IESG to essentially ignore the topics, not answer questions about how to progress documents, and to set up mechanisms and then neglect them sufficiently to ensure failure?
- Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side … Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Richard Barnes
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Richard Barnes
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Paul Wouters
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Nico Williams
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… heather flanagan
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Heather Flanagan
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Michael Richardson
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Ted Lemon
- Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Do… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… John C Klensin
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Lars Eggert
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Ted Lemon
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Job Snijders
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Salz, Rich
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Heather Flanagan
- Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, th… John C Klensin
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Joe Abley
- Re: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents… John C Klensin
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Randy Bush
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Leif Johansson
- RE: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Fwd: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvi… Keith Moore
- Re: Fwd: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Ev… Randy Bush
- Re: Fwd: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Ev… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Ted Lemon
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Ted Lemon
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… john heasley
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… john heasley
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Warren Kumari
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Warren Kumari
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Christian Huitema
- On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to be c… Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Ted Lemon
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Julian Reschke
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Randy Bush
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Richard Barnes
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Randy Bush
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Rescorla
- RE: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Leif Johansson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Ted Lemon
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Sarah B
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Randy Bush
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Richard Barnes
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Ted Lemon
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Richard Barnes
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Randy Bush
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Richard Barnes
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Leif Johansson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Donald Eastlake
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Keith Moore
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael Richardson
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Keith Moore
- RE: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Eric Gray
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Michael StJohns
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Melinda Shore
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Keith Moore
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Nico Williams
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Julian Reschke
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Julian Reschke
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Keith Moore
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Carsten Bormann
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Julian Reschke
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Keith Moore
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Carsten Bormann
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Julian Reschke
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Stewart Bryant
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Keith Moore
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Carsten Bormann
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… Mary B
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Julian Reschke
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Andrew G. Malis
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Ted Lemon
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Julian Reschke
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Carsten Bormann
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Ted Lemon
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Julian Reschke
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Julian Reschke
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Randy Bush
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Eric Rescorla
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Nico Williams
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Keith Moore
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Joe Touch
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Joe Touch
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Ted Lemon
- Re: On XML and $EDITORs (Re: Things that used to … Joe Touch
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… John Levine
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Joe Touch
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… John C Klensin
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… John C Klensin
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Nico Williams
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Stan Kalisch
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Joe Touch
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Joe Touch
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Julian Reschke
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… John R Levine
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be cl… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolvin… S Moonesamy
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Job Snijders
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Ted Lemon
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Ted Lemon
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Nico Williams
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Nico Williams
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Christopher Morrow
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Job Snijders
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Randy Bush
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Job Snijders
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Jared Mauch
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Ted Lemon
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Ted Lemon
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Jared Mauch
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… John C Klensin
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Nico Williams
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- is there a specific proposal for living ops docs?… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Christopher Morrow
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… john heasley
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Nico Williams
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Christopher Morrow
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Christopher Morrow
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Nico Williams
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Job Snijders
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… John C Klensin
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Christopher Morrow
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Martin Thomson
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Warren Kumari
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… John C Klensin
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… John C Klensin
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Keith Moore
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Salz, Rich
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Randy Bush
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Jared Mauch
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Randy Bush
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Jared Mauch
- Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") s… Hans Petter Holen
- Re: is there a specific proposal for living ops d… Miles Fidelman