On 28 dec 2007, at 7:41, Franck Martin wrote:
The What makes a protocol successful presentation, shows that the
best protocols are the ones given to IETF for it to refine and
complete. They have already a user pull when they reach IETF.
I don't think that's valid statistics: obviously many of
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:36:17AM +, Greg Skinner wrote:
FWIW, I reread Russ Housley's comments on the outage, and understand
it to be an experiment that is voluntary (but encouraged). Perhaps
this needs to be stated differently (e.g. IPv6 experiment planned for
IETF71 Plenary).
I think
It depends on what you consider the role of an engineer to be. I am a Chartered
Engineer. The job you describe sounds more like that of a technician.
Just as a chef knows evey part of the job of a sous-chef and cook an engineer
needs to know every part of the job of a technician. But an
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 07:23:04AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
It depends on what you consider the role of an engineer to be. I am
a Chartered Engineer. The job you describe sounds more like that of
a technician.
Just as a chef knows evey part of the job of a sous-chef and cook an
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28 dec 2007, at 7:41, Franck Martin wrote:
The What makes a protocol successful presentation, shows that the
best protocols are the ones given to IETF for it to refine and
complete. They have already a user pull when they reach IETF.
I don't think that's
I think this whole discussion would benefit from some concrete examples.
What wholly new protocols has the IETF developed in the past decade?
Which ones would you consider successful or not?
Almost by necessity, newer protocols tend to cover niches, relatively
speaking, as opposed to broad
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I think this whole discussion would benefit from some concrete examples.
What wholly new protocols has the IETF developed in the past decade?
Which ones would you consider successful or not?
Well, that's such a reasonable question, I did a subjective review of
Thanks for the list; the cut-off point is probably somewhat
subjective, but I see at least several protocols on the list that one
can consider reasonably successful, as in having several well-known
implementations, shipping as part of common desktop or server
operating systems, references
Hi, Alexey,
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Thanks, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I thought XMPP came from outside (www.jabber.org)?
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Thanks for the list; the cut-off point is probably somewhat
subjective, but I see at least several protocols on the list that
one can consider reasonably successful, as
I thought XMPP came from outside (www.jabber.org)?
I believe that's correct.
Sieve is another interesting case. It was originally developed at the IETF
but not by the IETF, in that there were various informal meetings where it
was designed but the initial documents were all individual
Hi Elwyn,
Many thanks for your detailed reviews as Gen-ART.
I am going to check your comments deeply next week and update the I-D.
Thank you,
-- Shima
-Original Message-
From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2008/01/01 (火) 0:41
To: General Area Review Team
Cc: Mary Barnes;
Theodore Tso wrote:
I think the real issue here is the difference between what was
originally stated (I think first by Marshall Rose in the Open Book) as
the difference between the ISO, promulgating OSI, and the IETF,
promulgating TCP/IP --- which was that ISO was populated primarily by
14 matches
Mail list logo
