Hi All,
I would like to raise an issue with this draft which is currently in Last
Call in regards to the storage of the e164:natpr extension element:
Currently:
3.1.2 EPP info Command
.
.
The e164:infData element contains one or more e164:naptr elements
Harald,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. As I recall, at a meeting with
you and Leslie in January 2004, you told me about a proposal under
consideration that involved the donation of a patented architecture to the
IETF. You mentioned a group that wanted to donate the technology,
but
--On tirsdag, oktober 26, 2004 15:50:07 -0400 Patrice Lyons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. As I recall, at a meeting
with
you and Leslie in January 2004, you told me about a proposal under
consideration that involved the donation of a patented
If you disagree with our determination of IETF consensus, or if you have any
other comments on this consensus call or on the document describing the
recommendation, please send them to the IETF mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by
Monday, November 8, 2004.
I trust its also OK to say that I
Hi,Harald Tveit Alvestrand,
First,this tech is an \"anti-spam by macroeffect\" and also based \"human psychological warfare\",
it may not work right-now.
Then,it\'s a more complex system but only on server-side,simple on client-side.What we think
is if users need it?Maybe the
Hi,Dave Aronson,
> (BTW, those two characters before the ! just show up as empty boxes
> here.)
These words are in Chinese.
I\'m not good at E
> I would certainly hope so. Otherwise it would be worse than useless.
Thankyou
>
> And in the case we are concerned with, that of the
I seem to have missed the consensus agreement somewhere along the line,
could someone please state what the statement is that we are suppose to
be consenting to before I agree or disagree. As it stands now, as one
of the silent members, I disagree.
If you disagree with our
The IESG has approved the following documents:
- 'BGP/MPLS IP VPNs '
draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs '
draft-ietf-l3vpn-as2547-07.txt as an Informational RFC
These documents are products of the Layer 3 Virtual
Small spelling correction:
It is a non-goal of the working group to develop new resource
allocation protocols. Traffic engineering is out of scope of this
WG. Additionally, third party signaling is out of scope of this WG.
New mobility and AAA protocols are out of scope of the WG.
However,
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 '
draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03.txt as an Experimental RFC
This document is the product of the MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Thomas Narten and Margaret
The Washington DC chapter of ISOC has arranged for VIP
guided tours of the U.S. Capitol building during IETF61.
The tour is planned to pack as much as possible in three
hours away from the IETF meeting. In addition to a guided
tour of the Capitol, you will have the option of:
(1) visiting a
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 3975
Title: The Common Gateway Interface (CGI) Version 1.1
Author(s): D. Robinson, K. Coar
Status: Informational
Date: October 2004
Mailbox:[EMAIL
The IAB and IESG have considered the input and feedback of the IETF community to
date, including discussions on the IETF mailing and the results of the straw
poll conducted in mid-October. Based on this input, the IAB and IESG have
written a specific recommendation about how to go forward with
13 matches
Mail list logo
