The datatracker doesn't have these drafts. (why not?)
Does anyone have copies of each draft? I'm trying to chart the draft
claims and the discussions and disputes, so that I can easily respond to
assertions regarding the current incarnation of this draft.
Thanks,
--Dean
--
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
The datatracker doesn't have these drafts. (why not?)
Does anyone have copies of each draft? I'm trying to chart the draft
claims and the discussions and disputes, so that I can easily respond to
assertions regarding the current incarnation of this
On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote:
Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table.
t
list
t0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 THIS NETWORK
*//t
t127.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LOOP-BACK
NETWORK *//t
Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs,
hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by
entities other than the IETF.
Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root
priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems
impossible if one of the participants will then go
Paul Wouters wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root
priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems
impossible if one of
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic.
Counter-productive. Not worth replying.
Perhaps the next time you think something is not worth replying to,
you could follow that conclusion with what
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:18:01AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote:
Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table.
t
list
t0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 THIS NETWORK
*//t
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:24:41AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic.
Counter-productive. Not worth replying.
Perhaps the next time you think something is
Dear colleagues,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:24:21PM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856
Thanks.
Having read the disclosure, having quickly read the referenced draft
draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 including the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bmanning) writes:
actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of
(good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they
believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards
development, are being patented by others and then used
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
I agree with your other post that such (IPR related!!??) discussions may
prevent dnsop from addressing the on-topic issue, i.e. a consensus-based
DNSSEC root priming specification.
It is not the IPR discussion that is preventing this. It's the IPR.
Still off-topic, but please let me, for once, provide a constructive
answer to a legitimate concern voiced by Bill:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of
(good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they
believe their ideas,
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions
about IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Thierry, when people much smarter and more experienced than you have
to defend themselves from you by doing
14 matches
Mail list logo
