I think the real issue here is whether or not the I-D describes a
practice or is a technical specification. In my option,
it is a technical specification of syntax and semantics of tags
used to indicate language information in protocols (HTTP, LDAP,
others), documents, and elsewhere. I believe t
At 03:12 PM 10/20/00 -0700, Dan Kohn wrote:
>This is the normal way standards progress through maturity, as otherwise
>issuing any new RFC would require dozens or hundreds of other RFCs to be
>simultaneously reissued.
It would be normal if the RFC 1766 was being replaced by a
standard track docum
As you can see from Appendix B, all of the changes are backward compatible,
and so you would treat all references to RFC 1766 as referencing the new
specification instead.
This is the normal way standards progress through maturity, as otherwise
issuing any new RFC would require dozens or hundreds
At 11:37 PM 10/19/00, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>my anarchistic self wonders
>what would happen if there was an open server that would allow (filtered)
>MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that
>would connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router?
>
>
"James P. Salsman" wrote:
[..]
> It may seem like tilting at windmills, but this topic is a rich
> source of hard unsolved engineering problems.
Not all unsolved problems need solving. Perhaps it would be
useful to quantify the real harm suffered by the IETF due to
the attendance requir
At 10:23 AM 10/20/00 -0400, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request to consider Tags for the Identification
>of Languages as a BCP. This has
>been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working
>Group.
>
>This document will obsolete RFC1766, currently a Proposed Standard
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> what would happen if there was an open server that would allow (filtered)
> MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that would
> connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router?
>
It's been done. I've implemented such in various real
David Mitton writes:
> What I do object to is backhanded Microsoft bashing.
> Let me try the same tune with different lyrics:
The Cisco Kid was a friend of mine
He drink whiskey Pancho drink the wine
We met down on the border Rio Grande
Eat the salty peanuts out de can
The outlaws had us pinned
> > The IESG of managing and assisting Working Groups
> > is one of the most important tasks IESG members perform,
> > and it cannot be done effectively from a remote location.
> I'm interested in the specific reasons why this is the case.
There are so many it is difficult to know where to start
Ned,
Thanks for your reply:
> The IESG of managing and assisting Working Groups
> is one of the most important tasks IESG members perform,
> and it cannot be done effectively from a remote location.
I'm interested in the specific reasons why this is the case.
You listed one:
> additional a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Harald Alvestrand typ
ed:
>>MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that would
>>connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router?
>>"start this program on a spare PC, and you too can watch the IETF multicast".
we have refl
At 08:25 19/10/2000 -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
>I wonder if we have any statistics available on how many people actually
>tune in to the multicast sessions? Many network providers are presently
>unable or unwilling to allow multicast into their networks. Last I
>asked, this included ATT Broadband/
12 matches
Mail list logo
