Yaakov Stein wrote:
(Back to the original subject line)
I must admit that I am still unclear as to
the true purpose of this new area.
At first I understood that the IETF was finally to address
real-time and/or delay-sensitive applications,
and Brian's list of WGs was just a proposed
Sam Hartman wrote:
Pekka how important is it that documents get reviewed by *all*
Pekka current areas? There are certainly some cross-layer
Pekka areas, such as SEC and OPS, that should worry about all
Pekka layers, but aren't the primary purpose of layering to make
Pekka
So, I am hearing here two conflicting messages:
1. We can't consider a horizontal split, since we need
cross-fertilisation and cross-area review.
2. We aren't doing (that much) cross-area review, or at
least don't require it.
Hence, I think my question still stands: Might the benefits
Bernard Aboba wrote:
...
Even fixing the issue in another IETF specification could prove sticky,
because it can be argued that the IANA has authority over the allocation of
new TLDs such as .local not the IETF,
Not so. Under exception (a) of clause 4.3 of RFC 2860, the IETF can require
IANA
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Under exception (a) of clause 4.3 of RFC 2860, the IETF can
require IANA to reserve such a pseudo-TLD. If anybody thinks
we should do so, feel free to write a short draft.
How about adding it to 2606 ? 2606bis could add a note that
.local might be used for local
Hi.
I did a quick read of this document and have a couple of general
comments (plus I spotted a very few trival nits).
It seems to be a very useful survey of what has been done in the area of
Wireless LAN and the interactions of link indications for hosts
connected directly to such links.
On 9/23/05 at 8:51 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yaakov Stein wrote:
I must admit that I am still unclear as to the true purpose of
this new area.
Firstly, I refer you to Ted Hardie's New area description/name
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37849.html
which
Melinda, et al,
The term
real-time tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.
Vernacular is not usually *more* precise. Note that I cited (human)
interactive vs. real-time, with whereas the usage you describe one terms that
encompasses both.
The discussion at
On 9/23/05 5:38 PM, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the proposed area, that does not seem to explain the inclusion of ENUM,
instant messaging or presence. (This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
ENUM is ancillary to telephony and not really to much else.
But anyway, you'll note
Melinda, thanks for pursuing this.
I tend to prefer
naming it something around multimedia applications but as
long as whatever it is is reasonably descriptive and won't
lead to people thinking that it's a proper place to work
on things like storage device controllers, I'm good.
well, what I
Adam Roach wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
(This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
I don't think it is a useful exercise to go through all the closed
working groups to determine which would have been in RAI had the area
existed when they were still active.
i agree. so it's probably a
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
-- Forwarded
IESG,
I would like to request that we consider Dean Anderson posting
privileges to be removed for the dnsop and ietf maillist.
As you can see from my private mail that Dean forwarded to the IETF
list, I have given him an official warning to refrain from sending any
more abusive mails to IETF
13 matches
Mail list logo
