Re: [Tools-discuss] bounces from tools.ietf.org

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks. Case closed.

On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> With the IETF website reorganization, the 1wg-summary.txt file
> (www.ietf.org/ietf/1wg-summary.txt) which lists the ADs and Chairs
> of the various WGs stopped being updated.  I discovered this
> yesterday, and switched over to an equivalent page which
> fortunately had been completed during the code sprint Saturday.
>
> Unfortunately, there were formatting differences between the old
> and new files, which caused the extraction of chair and AD information
> to the alias list to partially fail, which caused the delivery failure
> you forwarded.  I've fixed this now.
>
> Sorry for the service interruption.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> 	Henrik
>
>
> On 2009-07-30 11:37 Fred Baker said the following:
>> I must be missing something. Is tools.ietf.org offline?
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Mail Delivery System" <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: July 30, 2009 11:35:17 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
>>>
>>> The following message to <[e-mail]> was  
>>> undeliverable.
>>> The reason for the problem:
>>> 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'Unrouteable address'
>>> Reporting-MTA: dns; ams-iport-1.cisco.com
>>>
>>> Final-Recipient: rfc822;[e-mail]
>>> Action: failed
>>> Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
>>> Remote-MTA: dns; [64.170.98.42]
>>> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error
>>> 550-'Unrouteable address' (delivery attempts: 0)
>>>
>>> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: July 30, 2009 11:35:08 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> , [e-mail], Jean-
>>> Francois Mule <[e-mail]>, Barbara Stark
>>> <[e-mail]>, Ole Troan <[e-mail]>, Mark Townsley <[e-mail]
>>>> , Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[e-mail]>, Heather Kirksey <[e-mail]
>>>>
>>> Cc: [e-mail], 6man Chairs <6man-
>>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Working out the CPE Router Draft or Drafts
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to arrange a webex session (Cisco gives me the use of that
>>> for free) to discuss the direction of the CPE router draft(s). The
>>> folks on the CC line are welcome but not a target audience; I really
>>> would like the authors, or at least the principal authors, involved.
>>>
>>> In the WG meeting, we discussed a "phase I" and a "phase II". In
>>> part, my purpose here is to come to an initial triage - what do we
>>> want in a phase I document (one that is non-controversial, answers
>>> at least some important questions, and can be advanced in November),
>>> and what (which may be a subset or superset of what remains) do we
>>> want in a phase II document? I also want to come to some simple
>>> agreements on the content of phase I - if we have things that are
>>> not well understood but can be quickly sorted out, let's do so.
>>>
>>> The author team I would like to have on the phase I draft includes
>>> one person from the present author team, one person from the Donley
>>> draft, and one person from BBF. From various discussions, this seems
>>> to come down to Wes Beebee, Chris Donley, and Ole Troan. Does anyone
>>> have heartburn with that? I would like a commitment from the members
>>> of the team to be present in Hiroshima and if necessary the meeting
>>> in Anaheim next spring. http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html
>>>
>>> I understand that there is also some desire to have other drafts
>>> running in parallel, perhaps describing use cases. I'm open to that;
>>> I think we need to describe the most common use cases in an appendix
>>> or appendices in the draft, but see no reason to not have other
>>> documents describing other use cases. MY one request is that they be
>>> written with the knowledge of the author team and in such a manner
>>> that exposes requirements or gives practical guidance about how to
>>> use the CPE router that the WG document describes. I'll send those
>>> along not as working group drafts but as informational drafts
>>> friendly to the WG draft.
>>>
>>> My question is: what time works? Would you be so kind as to update http://doodle.com/ay9aax3xsru4q6t6
>>> with what works for you, and I will pick a time/date?
>>>
>>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Mail Delivery System" <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: July 30, 2009 11:35:17 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
>>>
>>> The following message to <[e-mail]> was  
>>> undeliverable.
>>> The reason for the problem:
>>> 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'Unrouteable address'
>>> Reporting-MTA: dns; ams-iport-1.cisco.com
>>>
>>> Final-Recipient: rfc822;[e-mail]
>>> Action: failed
>>> Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
>>> Remote-MTA: dns; [64.170.98.42]
>>> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error
>>> 550-'Unrouteable address' (delivery attempts: 0)
>>>
>>> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: July 30, 2009 11:35:08 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> , [e-mail], Jean-
>>> Francois Mule <[e-mail]>, Barbara Stark
>>> <[e-mail]>, Ole Troan <[e-mail]>, Mark Townsley <[e-mail]
>>>> , Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[e-mail]>, Heather Kirksey <[e-mail]
>>>>
>>> Cc: [e-mail], 6man Chairs <6man-
>>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Working out the CPE Router Draft or Drafts
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to arrange a webex session (Cisco gives me the use of that
>>> for free) to discuss the direction of the CPE router draft(s). The
>>> folks on the CC line are welcome but not a target audience; I really
>>> would like the authors, or at least the principal authors, involved.
>>>
>>> In the WG meeting, we discussed a "phase I" and a "phase II". In
>>> part, my purpose here is to come to an initial triage - what do we
>>> want in a phase I document (one that is non-controversial, answers
>>> at least some important questions, and can be advanced in November),
>>> and what (which may be a subset or superset of what remains) do we
>>> want in a phase II document? I also want to come to some simple
>>> agreements on the content of phase I - if we have things that are
>>> not well understood but can be quickly sorted out, let's do so.
>>>
>>> The author team I would like to have on the phase I draft includes
>>> one person from the present author team, one person from the Donley
>>> draft, and one person from BBF. From various discussions, this seems
>>> to come down to Wes Beebee, Chris Donley, and Ole Troan. Does anyone
>>> have heartburn with that? I would like a commitment from the members
>>> of the team to be present in Hiroshima and if necessary the meeting
>>> in Anaheim next spring. http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html
>>>
>>> I understand that there is also some desire to have other drafts
>>> running in parallel, perhaps describing use cases. I'm open to that;
>>> I think we need to describe the most common use cases in an appendix
>>> or appendices in the draft, but see no reason to not have other
>>> documents describing other use cases. MY one request is that they be
>>> written with the knowledge of the author team and in such a manner
>>> that exposes requirements or gives practical guidance about how to
>>> use the CPE router that the WG document describes. I'll send those
>>> along not as working group drafts but as informational drafts
>>> friendly to the WG draft.
>>>
>>> My question is: what time works? Would you be so kind as to update http://doodle.com/ay9aax3xsru4q6t6
>>> with what works for you, and I will pick a time/date?
>>>
>>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Mail Delivery System" <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: July 30, 2009 11:35:17 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
>>>
>>> The following message to <[e-mail]> was
>>> undeliverable.
>>> The reason for the problem:
>>> 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'Unrouteable address'
>>> Reporting-MTA: dns; ams-iport-1.cisco.com
>>>
>>> Final-Recipient: rfc822;[e-mail]
>>> Action: failed
>>> Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
>>> Remote-MTA: dns; [64.170.98.42]
>>> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error
>>> 550-'Unrouteable address' (delivery attempts: 0)
>>>
>>> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: July 30, 2009 11:35:08 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> , [e-mail], Jean-
>>> Francois Mule <[e-mail]>, Barbara Stark
>>> <[e-mail]>, Ole Troan <[e-mail]>, Mark Townsley <[e-mail]
>>>> , Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[e-mail]>, Heather Kirksey <[e-mail]
>>>>
>>> Cc: [e-mail], 6man Chairs <6man-
>>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Working out the CPE Router Draft or Drafts
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to arrange a webex session (Cisco gives me the use of that
>>> for free) to discuss the direction of the CPE router draft(s). The
>>> folks on the CC line are welcome but not a target audience; I really
>>> would like the authors, or at least the principal authors, involved.
>>>
>>> In the WG meeting, we discussed a "phase I" and a "phase II". In
>>> part, my purpose here is to come to an initial triage - what do we
>>> want in a phase I document (one that is non-controversial, answers
>>> at least some important questions, and can be advanced in November),
>>> and what (which may be a subset or superset of what remains) do we
>>> want in a phase II document? I also want to come to some simple
>>> agreements on the content of phase I - if we have things that are
>>> not well understood but can be quickly sorted out, let's do so.
>>>
>>> The author team I would like to have on the phase I draft includes
>>> one person from the present author team, one person from the Donley
>>> draft, and one person from BBF. From various discussions, this seems
>>> to come down to Wes Beebee, Chris Donley, and Ole Troan. Does anyone
>>> have heartburn with that? I would like a commitment from the members
>>> of the team to be present in Hiroshima and if necessary the meeting
>>> in Anaheim next spring. http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html
>>>
>>> I understand that there is also some desire to have other drafts
>>> running in parallel, perhaps describing use cases. I'm open to that;
>>> I think we need to describe the most common use cases in an appendix
>>> or appendices in the draft, but see no reason to not have other
>>> documents describing other use cases. MY one request is that they be
>>> written with the knowledge of the author team and in such a manner
>>> that exposes requirements or gives practical guidance about how to
>>> use the CPE router that the WG document describes. I'll send those
>>> along not as working group drafts but as informational drafts
>>> friendly to the WG draft.
>>>
>>> My question is: what time works? Would you be so kind as to update http://doodle.com/ay9aax3xsru4q6t6
>>> with what works for you, and I will pick a time/date?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tools-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss