Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: List address: ietf-...@ietf.org Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year 2258?!? Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century. Doesn't it coincide with the 1st season of Babylon 5? Yoav
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
On 06/15/2012 08:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: List address: ietf-...@ietf.org Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year 2258?!? Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century. ASCII, of course. But the boilerplate will have changed. Doesn't it coincide with the 1st season of Babylon 5? Yoav
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:24 48AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 06/15/2012 08:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: List address: ietf-...@ietf.org Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year 2258?!? Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century. ASCII, of course. But the boilerplate will have changed. Yes, but upgraded from US-ASCII to Federation of Planets-ASCII. --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
--On Friday, June 15, 2012 11:13 -0400 Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote: Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century. ASCII, of course. But the boilerplate will have changed. Yes, but upgraded from US-ASCII to Federation of Planets-ASCII. Can't be anything-ASCII unless there is an ANSI on Mars or further out. FoPSCII ? Maybe, in the interest of interplanetaryization (i19n ?) and multigalacticism (m13m ?) we should start using FoPSCII and Galicode references in our documents and noting that ASCII and Unicode are temporary substitutes. john john
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
At 01:46 AM 6/15/2012, Yoav Nir wrote: On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: List address: ietf-...@ietf.org Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year 2258?!? Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century. Doesn't it coincide with the 1st season of Babylon 5? a B5 reference... this doesn't happen often enough IMO BTW - 2258 was the second season of B5. Yoav
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century. The Emperor finds your lack of faith... disturbing. Noel
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
Maybe, in the interest of interplanetaryization (i19n ?) and multigalacticism (m13m ?) we should start using FoPSCII and Galicode references in our documents and noting that ASCII and Unicode are temporary substitutes. It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference between ASCII and FoPSCII is that the ASCII # is replaced by the modern currency symbol, and, of course, they put the little gap back in the vertical bar to resolve the concerns about religious and cultural insensitivty. R's, John
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
On 6/15/2012 12:58 PM, John Levine wrote: It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference between ASCII and FoPSCII is that the ASCII # is replaced by the modern currency symbol, and, of course, they put the little gap back in the vertical bar to resolve the concerns about religious and cultural insensitivty. The more important questions are: who invented FoPSCII and how old were they? d/ ps. the less important question is how many folk don't get the reference? -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
--On Friday, June 15, 2012 19:58 + John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Maybe, in the interest of interplanetaryization (i19n ?) and multigalacticism (m13m ?) we should start using FoPSCII and Galicode references in our documents and noting that ASCII and Unicode are temporary substitutes. It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference between ASCII and FoPSCII is that the ASCII # is replaced by the modern currency symbol, and, of course, they put the little gap back in the vertical bar to resolve the concerns about religious and cultural insensitivty. Huh? ISO/IEC 646 IRV (another candidate for a FoPSCII precursor) replaces the ASCII $, not #, with that universal currency symbol. As for that vertical bar, sufficiently elderly practitioners of the art of Character Confusion and Coding (CCS) will recall that the ancient Earthling-Based Convention for Difficult Information Coding included two peculiar characters: a mathematical not sign that closely resembled Unicode's ⌐ (U+2310) and that broken vertical bar. Those characters spawned multiple wars over how they should be mapped into ASCII and ISO/IEC 646 with one group arguing for caret and (solid) vertical bar, another for tilde and exclamation mark, and a third for exclamation mark and [solid] vertical bar. After much bloodshed, 16 and 32 bit character sets were invented so that almost everyone could contemplate their cakes while eating them and continued dissenters were tortured until they repented. Those battles were repeated in the development of FoPSCII when it was noticed that the 5th character of the Klingon alphabet was confusable with both the not-sign, Greek upper case Gamma, and Latin r. In addition, the Klingon numeral 8 was easily confused with Cyrillic Ж. This created a variant problem that the Intergalactic Consortium for Arbitrary Names and Numbers could not dismiss because of some of the advocates had a more effective means of persuasion than merely hiring lawyers. :-( john
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
Do we have to rehash all of this stuff AGAIN? R's, John Huh? ISO/IEC 646 IRV (another candidate for a FoPSCII precursor) replaces the ASCII $, not #, with that universal currency symbol. As for that vertical bar, sufficiently elderly practitioners of the art of Character Confusion and Coding (CCS) will recall that the ancient Earthling-Based Convention for Difficult Information Coding included two peculiar characters: a mathematical not sign that closely resembled Unicode's ⌐ (U+2310) and that broken vertical bar. Those characters spawned multiple wars over how they should be mapped into ASCII and ISO/IEC 646 with one group arguing for caret and (solid) vertical bar, another for tilde and exclamation mark, and a third for exclamation mark and [solid] vertical bar. After much bloodshed, 16 and 32 bit character sets were invented so that almost everyone could contemplate their cakes while eating them and continued dissenters were tortured until they repented. Those battles were repeated in the development of FoPSCII when it was noticed that the 5th character of the Klingon alphabet was confusable with both the not-sign, Greek upper case Gamma, and Latin r. In addition, the Klingon numeral 8 was easily confused with Cyrillic Ж. This created a variant problem that the Intergalactic Consortium for Arbitrary Names and Numbers could not dismiss because of some of the advocates had a more effective means of persuasion than merely hiring lawyers. :-(
Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: List address: ietf-...@ietf.org Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year 2258?!? /psa
Re: [IETF] Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: List address: ietf-...@ietf.org Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year 2258?!? Who cares about that? I think that it is *vital* that we discuss RFC 85 and fully explore all of the implications therein. For example, *where* at the Illini Union will it be? What do we do if Phyllis doesn't reply in time? Who will bring the bluesheets? How do I get from the airport to the Illini Union? And who fixes the clock in my room if the chambermaid doesn't? I therefore propose that we create a ietf-...@ietf.org list to fully (and finally) get to the bottom of these important questions, once and for all…. W /psa --- Schizophrenia beats being alone.
Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: List address: ietf-...@ietf.org Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year 2258?!? Who cares about that? I think that it is *vital* that we discuss RFC 85 and fully explore all of the implications therein. For example, *where* at the Illini Union will it be? What do we do if Phyllis doesn't reply in time? Who will bring the bluesheets? How do I get from the airport to the Illini Union? And who fixes the clock in my room if the chambermaid doesn't? I therefore propose that we create a ietf-...@ietf.org list to fully (and finally) get to the bottom of these important questions, once and for all…. …. and wouldn't this have been awesome if I actually had ietf...@ietf.org in my paste buffer (like I thought I did) and not ietf-...@ietf.org. That way I would have sounded super-awesomely funny and not like I had miscalculated my meds…. W W /psa --- Schizophrenia beats being alone. -- It is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead -- E.W Dijkstra, 1930-2002
