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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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?
>
>