Talk:Internet Engineering Task Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wrong link

Link is wrong: "Fred Baker" in section "List of IETF chairs" leads to another Fred Baker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.169.90 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 April 2005

So fix it, it's a Wiki! (It's still wrong, I'll fix it in a bit if nobody else gets there first.) Noel (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Chair lists wrong

IETF chairs and the years they served, as listed, is out of sync with the listing on the IETF's page. Hobart 17:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The list that was there when you posted this matches the IETF's list. Maybe the (admittedly confusing) formatting on the IETF's list threw you off? Noel (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Start of the IETF

This internet-history mailing list message from Mike St Johns contains some useful info about the origin of the IETF:

"The IETF was established as the result of an IAB meeting held just immediately before the 1st IETF meeting .. Mike Corrigan .. came in late in the day on the first day of the meeting and informed us the IAB had decided to split GADS into the INENG and the INARC ..

I would really call that specific day the first IETF meeting. According to the IETF website, that was January 17th, 1986"

Note sure I quite agree with Mike (I'd consider the first formal IETF meeting to be the one at BRL, in April, 1986), but since the IETF site counts the January meeting as #1 I guess I've lost that one! :-) His account is correct though; I was at the January GADS meeting, and his description matches my memory of it. Noel (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Rough Consensus

The word Consensus is thrown around quite a bit in this article, but no mention is made of the process they make consensus by. Humming. WHichever side hums louder at the meeting... I don't know enough about this to write it up into the article, though. GofG _|^|_| Talk 17:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The process is highly variable; humming is just the one that is the most fun to watch :-) - the main point is that if you have to make exact counts to see which one is "strongest", you don't have consensus. --Alvestrand 19:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Security area

archive from December 2007 -Susanlesch (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A link here was indeed archived within five or six days. Sorry for the confusion, entirely my fault. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BoFs?

The second paragraph uses the term BoF, but fails to explain it. I will delete it unless someone offers an explanation of what it means. Bazza (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both links went to working group. The link to BofF has been fixed. -Susanlesch (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that has explained what the acronym means to me. I have expanded it in the article to explain to others who may be as puzzled as I was. Bazza (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

IETF Working Group is a stub and an almost verbatim copy of the corresponding section. I don't see the point, if a WG is or was relevant it can get its own article. But the mere concept of IETF Working Groups isn't notable enough for a separate article. I've read an older discussion on Talk:IETF Working Group, and remain unconvinced, fixing a few links is no obstacle, and the edit history would be preserved in the redirect. --212.82.251.42 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the other option and removed the redundant information from this article. I think someone copied it in from the WG article earlier. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• After more than 2 1/2 years, it still is a irrelevant stub. The tiny bit of original info can be blended-in here easily. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

standards

Which standards were invented (with/without W3C dosn't mater) by the ietf? --mabdul 0=* 13:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The IETF Secretariat is camera shy?

Noticed that User:Alvestrand took my photo out of the article apparently because the IETF Executive Director requested it. While I'll be happy to defer to the director on this issue, out of curiosity, what was the justification?

This would be the second time, BTW, that one of my photos has been pulled from a Wikipedia article at the request of the organization whose facility was depicted. The first was the Wikimedia Foundation.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggested merging the Internaut article into this one, as that article lacks sources and independent notability, and it seems this would be the best place for it to go. Luksuh (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been going to IETF meetings and participating actively on mailing lists since the mid-90's, and this is the first time I've heard the term "Internaut." On that basis, I don't think there's any reason for merging the two articles. TBH the Internaut article doesn't seem notable to me--it seems like it should be an entry in the Jargon File, not an entry in Wikipedia. Certainly at this point it seems like a historical note--the Internet where things like "netiquette" could be thought of as a coherent idea is long dead, and has been replaced with something rich, alarming and strange. An Internaut would, I suspect, scarcely know what to do in this brave new world; the image that pops into my mind is of a person in a diving suit from 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea hunched over an electro-mechanical teletype keyboard, unaware of the tentacle-mouthed biped looming over his shoulder. Abhayakara (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jokes

Any chance of somebody adding stuff about IETF april fools' jokes? Rogerdpack (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

are alrwady collected at April Fools' Day RFC mabdul 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

GADS Task Force

If you're very sure about it, yes, merge it. But it has only one reference, I haven't checked it, and everybody and their dog claim to have invented the Internet, the Web, the IETF, etc. So if you're not not sure better PROD it. 2A03:2267:0:0:C15F:1730:FD90:1747 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)