g'day,
Tripp Lilley wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
>
> > readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as "Request
> > For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to find
> > ways to better distinguish between t
On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 11:09:12 EDT, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View said:
> Well put. As Dave has pointed out earlier this weekend, there is a burning need
> for better, permanent access to the Drafts collection. If we had that, perhaps
> much of this discussion might become moot, since some of the o
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
> readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as "Request
> For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to find
> ways to better distinguish between the Standards track and other documents
g'day,
Fred Baker wrote:
> At 03:51 PM 4/8/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >If the IETF engages in routine non-acceptance of "informational" documents
> >on the basis of non-technical concerns the IETF will, I believe, lose its
> >clear and loud voice when that voice is most needed to be heard.
At 14.35 -0700 2000-04-09, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Let's remember that a major goal of these facilities is to get a
>user to a server that is 'close' to the user. Having interception
>done only at distant, localized server farm facilities will not
>achieve that goal.
>
>Further, I'm unclear about
At 03:51 PM 4/8/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>If the IETF engages in routine non-acceptance of "informational" documents
>on the basis of non-technical concerns the IETF will, I believe, lose its
>clear and loud voice when that voice is most needed to be heard.
That's a valid concern. The trade
At 03:42 PM 4/9/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You are confusing topological locality with administrative locality. I was
>talking about the latter, and so, I believe, was Valdis.
As my later comment meant to convey, I too was clear about the distinction,
but yes I was definitely confused
> On 4/9/00 at 12:39 PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >[...]the RFC Editor exercises editorial control over the RFC series,
> >but doesn't specify exactly what editorial control means.
> Actually, Harald's quote from 2026 does make it pretty clear:
> Section 4.2.3:
> The RFC Editor
>
At 03:35 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
>Which raises the interesting question as to what the participants would
>hope to
>be the outcome of such a working group and whether we could possibly move
>towards something ressembling a technical consensus, given the current
>po
> At 01:39 PM 4/9/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > However, I am
> > > fully in agreement that interception proxies imposed anyplace other
> > > than either endpoint of the connection is a Bad Idea, because a third
> >
> >Exactly. And after having read this specification, I also think the
g'day,
Dave Crocker wrote:
. . .
> It strikes me that it would be much, much more productive to fire up a
> working group focused on this topic, since we have known of the application
> level need for about 12 years, if not longer.
Which raises the interesting question as to what the particip
At 01:39 PM 4/9/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > However, I am
> > fully in agreement that interception proxies imposed anyplace other
> > than either endpoint of the connection is a Bad Idea, because a third
>
>Exactly. And after having read this specification, I also think these issues
>a
[Removed IESG and RFC Editor from the recipients]
On 4/9/00 at 1:52 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Although Pete is attempting to support my comments -- and I equally
>concur with his point of view -- in fact I did not say what he
>offers as the summary of my statement. What I said was actual
On 4/9/00 at 2:06 PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Uh, no. I see no deployed support for this document and therefore see
> > no relevance to the Internet community to have this document
> > published. If noone on the Internet is doing it and I'
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:28:12 EDT, Keith Moore said:
> > The simple fact is that I believe that the idea of interception proxies
> > does not have sufficient technical merit to be published by IETF, and
> > that IETF's publication of a document that tends to promote the use
> > of such devices wo
At 12:54 PM 4/9/00 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>Dave's message only said that technical merit has no bearing on
>publication of Informational or
This is a good example of the reason this apsect of debate is a major waste
of time.
Although Pete is attempting to support my comments -- and I equal
On 4/9/00 at 12:39 PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[...]the RFC Editor exercises editorial control over the RFC series,
>but doesn't specify exactly what editorial control means.
Actually, Harald's quote from 2026 does make it pretty clear:
Section 4.2.3:
The RFC Editor
is expecte
> From: Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>...He suggested that we allow them to document current practice.
> >Do I understand correctly that you think that
> >draft-terrell-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-addr-cls-02.txt
> >should have been published as an RFC?
>
> Uh, no. I see no deployed support for t
> > For those who believe this, please check out the technical merit of
> > draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-05.txt, and ask
> > yourselves if this should be published as an RFC.
> It should not. See my message to Vernon. But it's not because it
> lacks technical merit that it shou
Henning;
> The current issue of The Economist discusses the state of the current
> patent system. It refers to a site www.bustpatents.com, which may be of
> interest in this regard.
As usual, the articles there are useless, because:
Only a very small percentage of those participating in
At 13:51 09.04.2000 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>On 4/9/00 at 8:21 PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>>For those who believe this, please check out the technical merit of
>>draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-05.txt, and ask
>>yourselves if this should be published as an RFC.
On 4/9/00 at 8:21 PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>For those who believe this, please check out the technical merit of
>draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-05.txt, and ask
>yourselves if this should be published as an RFC.
It should not. See my message to Vernon. But it's
On 4/9/00 at 12:24 PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>>From: Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>...He suggested that we allow them to document current practice.
>
>Do I understand correctly that you think that
>draft-terrell-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-addr-cls-02.txt
>should have been published as an R
At 12:54 09.04.2000 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>You need to go back and read the message to which you are responding
>again. Technical merit is specifically *not* a factor in deciding
>publication of an Experimental or Informational document.
For those who believe this, please check out the tech
> From: Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> Dave's message only said that technical merit has no bearing on
> publication of Informational or Experimental RFCs. He (nor anyone
> else in this thread as far as I can tell) mad no claim that we ought
> to determine technical merit on the basi
Folks,
The time between ietf list discussions about patent issues seems to be
getting smaller. Unfortunately, there is not much that the IETF can do
about patent law, in the U.S. or elsewhere.
(Also, based on my own very limited exposure to that realm, it seems clear
that only a very small p
On 4/8/00 at 5:40 PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
>> draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
>> clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
> > document not relevant.
>
>I'm
The current issue of The Economist discusses the state of the current
patent system. It refers to a site www.bustpatents.com, which may be of
interest in this regard.
--
Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
28 matches
Mail list logo
