If that were the case, well Randy, I'll forward you a message or two from
head hunters "on behalf of Verio", or Cisco, or Juniper, or pretty much
any other company you can name.
most of the time they are lying
and if i know my friend mary is looking, and i incidentally get a call from
a
--On Thursday, 28 September, 2000 02:28 -0400 vint cerf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perhaps I-Ds are more like elaborated lab notebooks?
very useful for patent references, reviewing dead ends, partly
explored ideas, etc. One doesn't typically throw away lab
notebooks just because you didn't
the twist between I-D and lab notebook is that the I-D is
often an explicitly shared document (group lab notebook).
Vint
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2000 22:54 -0700 Michael Oh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Below is a so called representation agreement I received but
it has many ambiguities. Is this agreement clear to you why
there's $25,000.00 fee assessed prior and why it can be
prudently fined for any
At 23:43 27/09/00, Danny McPherson wrote:
Ran, does your company make it routine practice while working on behalf of
recruiters?
AFAIK none have used IETF data inappropriately and ALL of
my current/past employers do have a practice of telling
recruiters explicitly not to violate AUPs (e.g.
Convert the I-Ds to ps or pdf files (something hard to change)
Postscript files are straightforward for a postscript hacker to
change. I imagine the same is true for pdf files.
If you want to make the files hard to change, try a pgp signature.
- Bill
In general, I would guess that there would be no problem, ethical, legal
or otherwise, if authors explicitly agreed, retroactively or by
boilerplate, to have the document archived. Thus, one could envision at
least three solutions:
(1) Modify I-D boilerplate to include (or not) a statement like
oh ...hold on folks !, a pgp signature for an
expire i-d ?. I think the question
was "about whether TO archive or NOT archive ID".
some consensus right now is,
Some authors = No ;
Some authors = yes;
Libarian = yes;
Historian = yes;
IETF = no;
and lets stick to the question of why/how ID's
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:55:11 EDT, Brijesh Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why would someone like to preserve some thing that has been found to
be not worth publishing as an RFC? What is next? Click on XX for paper
Reason 1:
"We considered that back in 1997, and it didn't work then"
Reason
"Dawson, Peter D" wrote:
[..]
and lets stick to the question of why/how ID's are
reference in RFC's
That question was resolved within the first few days of
the original thread. In RFCs I-Ds can be cited non-normatively
as "work in progrees", and cannot be normatively cited. This
- Some authors = No ;
- Some authors = yes;
- Libarian = yes;
- Historian = yes;
- IETF = no;
-Interesting set of categories, there. Who's
-the "IETF?"
I could (would) say that it is the entity indirectly
responsible
for ID/RFC publications with the rights of such publications
Pete Does this particular entry mean draft-ietf-mpls-arch-07.txt is being
Pete held for normative reference to the I-Ds listed below it, or that all
Pete those I-Ds are being held for normative references?
The meaning of that queue entry is that the first document mentioned is
being
Link to article below:
http://www.thestreet.com/comment/herbonthestreet/1096812.html
Commentary: Herb on TheStreet.com
Why So Much Smart Money Is So High on Read-Rite
By Herb Greenberg
Senior Columnist
9/26/00
Hi Bill,
Postscript files are straightforward for a postscript hacker to
change. I imagine the same is true for pdf files.
If you want to make the files hard to change, try a pgp signature.
I have no problem with that, but it's not enough. I'm interested in
putting something in front of a
Bill Manning wrote:
[..from boilerplate..]
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
[..comment...]
What constitutes "validity"?
I would suggest only "possibly of current
Folks,
There was a typo in the announcement sent out yesterday, the date
was given inconsistently.
The date for the discussion will be Wednesday, October 25th.
Cheers,
Lyndon Ong
Maureen Stillman
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:27:23 PDT, Bill Manning said:
Two key points here. The first paragraph explicitly denys the IETF from
doing anything w/ the document other than publishing it as an ID.
The second point is that the document, as submitted, is only valid, AS an ID,
for a maximum of six
% On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:27:23 PDT, Bill Manning said:
% Two key points here. The first paragraph explicitly denys the IETF from
% doing anything w/ the document other than publishing it as an ID.
% The second point is that the document, as submitted, is only valid, AS an ID,
% for a maximum
% Bill Manning wrote:
% [..from boilerplate..]
% Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
% may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
%
% [..comment...]
% What constitutes "validity"?
%
% I would suggest only "possibly
... Are they allowed to republish w/o
my consent?
Who is talking about "republishing"?
If a book publisher decides to donate its unsold stock to a library instead
of shredding it, is that "republishing"?
Can a book or magazine publisher decide to run
From: "Eliot Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm interested in putting something in front of a trade press person
that they cannot ignore. Perhaps the watermark should simply be
"REJECTED or EXPIRED".
Somehow I doubt this will work. Nobody's going to try to scam a trade press
person
I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG".
Too WG-centric, e.g., if draft-jaye-http-trust-state-mgt-01.txt has
expired (it has), and if the HTTP WG has shut down (it has), then no
interested party (using the above suggested definition of "validity")
can exist. Mind, it
http://www.alternic.org/drafts/drafts-i-j/draft-ietf-ipngwg-gseaddr-00.txt
(this is the revised version, I didn't look for the original 8+8)
Brian
Eliot Lear wrote:
John,
I would accept your interpretation if you can go to a major search engine,
like Yahoo or Altavista, and find me in
Bill Manning wrote:
% Bill Manning wrote:
% [..from boilerplate..]
% Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
% may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
%
% [..comment...]
% What constitutes "validity"?
%
%
Title: RE: Need to preserve Internet Drafts
All,
Please take Vivek Kapil off of your mailing list. He keeps receiving a large amount of e-mails that he can no longer keep up with.
Thank,
Kathy Wisenbaker
IDC/ASP Strategic Business Consulting
*Phone : (972) 684-8232, ESN 444-8232
* Fax:
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG".
Too WG-centric, e.g., if draft-jaye-http-trust-state-mgt-01.txt has
expired (it has), and if the HTTP WG has shut down (it has), then no
interested party (using the above suggested
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 28 13:06:31 2000
* From: "Eliot Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: "John C Klensin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "\"Mike O'Dell\"" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3744053340.970111694@P2
* Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:44:00 PDT, Grenville Armitage said:
than 6 months old. If in addition you've revoked the IETF's right to
copy your I-D's words after 6 months, any WG newly interested in your
old work simply has to find a different set of words to express those
ideas.
That's assuming
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
[..]
WGs are not procedurally necessary for a draft to reach publication,
So we add "and/or IESG" to the list of IETF/IRTF organs who might
be interested in an I-D, that's not much of a stretch.
After 6 months and no re-issue an I-D can be considered to be
* I would accept your interpretation if you can go to a
major search engine,
* like Yahoo or Altavista, and find me in a brief period
of time ANY version
* of Mike O'Dell's 8+8 proposal. Don't you think it
shameful that there is
* no permanent record about a serious effort to
Would everybody please stop sending me search results!? Google seems to
have it on the front page. Yahoo doesn't. People are getting mixed
results out of Altavista. [Talk about a dumb message that shouldn't have
been archived ;-].
The document that Christian found on the IETF server is NOT
Why are the 'old' documents deleted? because they are considered useless?
to save space? to cut down on search hits? BLB
As many of you are aware, the IETF WebDAV (Web Distributed Authoring and
Versioning) working group was created to develop a set of extensions to HTTP
to allow interoperable remote authoring of Web resources. Though the
initial mission of WebDAV was to provide services for both remote authoring
Somehow I doubt this will work. Nobody's going to try to scam a trade press
person with an old I-D; they'll just file a new one (it's not exactly hard,
right?) and use that.
nah. they'll just tell the trade press person that the proposal was submitted
to IETF. as far as I can tell, in about
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:57:14PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
It's not merely that I-D's are already archived, albeit inconveniently
and obscurely.
yes, but IETF isn't (yet) maintaining public archives, so IETF doesn't
(yet) have the liability of breaking its agreement to expire the
The use of IDs for demonstration of prior art raises an interesting
possibility: forged or altered IDs being used to challenge patents.
interesting point.
another possible way to solve it, independent of an official IETF archive,
would be to have internet-drafts timestamped on submission
Title: Dnaprint
Text version below:
Dnaprint
(DNAP)
is an
emerging biotech company in this weeks Barrons.
1) CEO (Dr. Tony Frudakis) Lead scientist for
Corixa starts his own company a few months ago
2) Company is formed by a reverse merger of a pinksheet company
3) DNAP has already
At 02:43 PM 9/28/00 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
Hear, hear! In fact, we may want to create a procedure for "instant
historical" publication, that would take such drafts and publish them as RFC
because we believe that they mark important points in the public debate, and
because we want to
38 matches
Mail list logo
