Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this message is not intended as legal advice.
Please, read RFC3979 for yourself, and if you have concerns as to what
your obligations are or what you can get away with, consult a lawyer.
On Wednesday, June 07, 2006 02:22:06 PM -0400 Gray, Eric
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Although I'm an IAB member, I'd rather make my one comment
on this draft in public.
I think it misses one point that should be mentioned. The
easiest way to explain it is to suggest new text:
4.4. Avoiding interference between publication streams
Unfortunately the genesis of some IP is not that easily dealt with - In fact
EACH and EVERY contributor must be named, since their rights to the core
genesis are something that are either defined in an agreement or somethign
for resolution before a trier of fact in some form.
Todd
- Original
So how about concluding that there is no single
right answer to Iljitsch's question, but there may
be scope for defining considerations for the choice
of data encoding?
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Ray,
On 6-jun-2006, at 16:31, Ray Pelletier wrote:
I am pleased to report this 6th day of June 2006 that IETF FTP, Mail
Web support IPv6.
I was wondering: would it be possible to publish statistics about
IPv4 vs IPv6 traffic for these services?
I have
This is not especially on-topic here, but since (a) there are
probably more people here who have an interest in debugging/reviewing
RFC 2445 documents than anywhere else and (b) there are probably more
people here for whom a maintained calendar of meetings is a wildly
useful thing, I
Brian -
In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document
that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so.
These are the facts as I understand them.
1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel
the RFC Editor, but more recently
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't.
Eliot
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
The IAB document is consistent with the
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
What
At 02:31 PM 6/9/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that
At 02:48 PM 6/9/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
The IAB document is consistent
with the operational facts
that have governed
Mike,
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
That's a mischaracterization of what I said,
At 04:09 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
*
* I think there is a middle ground that can exist - a contract between
* IAOC representing IETF and ISI representing RFC Editor where RFC Editor
* agrees to publish documents submitted to it by IETF (i.e. they'll not
* be able to say no to IETF request to publish document even if RFC
I do not support approval of this experiment. I opine that most
of the publication delay is due to WG/author choice, not the
downref rule. I also offer an alternative cure which keeps in place
the downref rule in published RFCs.
If a WG or individual is pursuing publication of a Standard Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4555
Title: IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
(MOBIKE)
Author: P. Eronen
Status: Standards Track
Date: June 2006
19 matches
Mail list logo
