Hi.
One additional piece of information relating to drafts that ism't
included in the drafts database is the location of the issue tracker (if
any). They aren't all in one place at the moment which makes life more
difficult than necessary for the casual inspector... for example...
- I was
Dave Crocker write:
the questionnaire will not serve to understand the needs
of people who are *unable to attend*
Perhaps we should ask a more open-ended question (i.e. B below):
A) Did you attend IETF-65?
B) If not, why not?
Regards,
Ed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Ed;
This might also be a useful question to ask; it might be better to
make it multiple choice along the lines of
(B. If not, because of
- general expense
- registration fees
- difficulty in arranging visa's or other travel preparations
- interference from other meetings or work schedule
David,
As I understand it, it would be a man-in-the-middle
attack if you sat at a table and ordered a Burrito from a
person you thought was a waiter. That person then goes to
the counter, orders two burritos and a large coffee, to go.
They then deliver one Burrito to you, along with the
Hi David,
I'm not really sure if we are able to completely understand each other, may
be my fault with my poor English.
I'm not saying anyone is enforcing one or the other protocol, I just say
that it may be wrong to assume, even if we believe that a is better, that
it will work if almost
Hi John,
Thanks for your input. See below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
De: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:51 -0500
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Interim meetings planning [was Softwires
I don't understand why this discussion keeps going on and on, much
less why it started in the first place.
Folks, surely we have more important issues of Internet technology to
talk about, rather than jaw-boning about a task that we have delegated
to a competant organization. That organization
So, in the context of a location that may be considered isolated, I
think it might be useful to consider this an experiment, and judge
the reaction of the community after the meeting towards this
variable.
A reasonable question, but it probably needs to be picked out a little
more than that. For
Bob Braden wrote:
I don't understand why this discussion keeps going on and on, much
less why it started in the first place.
perhaps the difficulty is that you do not suffer from the problems being
discussed. that is fine for you, but it does not make the problems small or
secondary.
when
At 12:25 PM 1/30/2006, John Levine wrote:
So, in the context of a location that may be considered isolated, I
think it might be useful to consider this an experiment, and judge
the reaction of the community after the meeting towards this
variable.
A reasonable question, but it probably needs to
I've abstained myself to comment on this thread until now ... I prefer not
to judge until I actually visit the venue and see the real situation,
because it will be unfair to discover that this venue has been selected
being distant to downtown, when this was the excuse given to me for not
accepting
Joel == Joel M Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joel As I read the description of the experiment, when the IESG
Joel decides on the appropriate response to a specific case, they
Joel can decide whether that response is a single-list response
Joel or a multi-list response.
That
The IESG has received a request from the IP over Cable Data Network WG to
consider the following document:
- 'Multimedia Terminal Adapter (MTA) Management Information Base for
PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant devices '
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
The
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4372
Title: Chargeable User Identity
Author: F. Adrangi, A. Lior,
J. Korhonen, J. Loughney
Status: Standards Track
Date: January
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4369
Title: Definitions of Managed Objects for
Internet Fibre Channel Protocol iFCP
Author: K. Gibbons, C. Monia,
J. Tseng, F.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4373
Title: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol LDAP
Bulk Update Replication Protocol LBURP
Author: R. Harrison, J. Sermersheim,
Y.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4357
Title: Additional Cryptographic Algorithms for Use
with GOST 28147-89 GOST R 34
10-94 GOST R 34 10-2001 and
GOST R 34
The IESG has received a request from the Remote Network Monitoring WG to
consider the following documents:
- 'Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring (RAQMON) MIB '
draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-mib-11.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring
18 matches
Mail list logo
