I think that's a pretty bizarre way to measure IPv6 deployment. The
_last_ applications to support IPv6 will be the widely popular apps that
depend on an extensive infrastructure of servers that are currently
associated with IPv4. Email and the web both fall into this category.
And as long as a
Since there's been so much discussion here of IPv6 here, I thought
I'd mention a recent post on CircleID.com called Examining Actual
State of IPv6 Deployment:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/81166_actual_state_ipv6_deployment/
The article is by Thomas Kuehne and is a quick-and-dirty study
This is a reminder that the transition of the main IETF web site
began on Wednesday, 16 January. Virtually all changes to static web
pages are on hold until testing is completed and the actual cut-over
takes place on 31 January 2008.
This hold does not affect data driven web pages, web sites
On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier
and cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web
pages. Fred might note that cheaper with his IAOC hat on ;-).
I do indeed. That said, I'm paying for the RFC
--On Friday, 18 January, 2008 13:18 -0600 Eric Gray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Your description of the reasons for having the draft sub-
mission dead-lines may agree with original thinking that went
into setting them, initially. However, there were collateral
benefits that
As someone new to the IETF, how should I go about doing the following?
I want to find some information about IMAP and its extensions. Let's
say I found RFC 1730. How would I know that it had been obsoleted by
RFC 2060 and then by RFC 3501? How do I find the extensions? I don't
necessarily
On 2008-01-18 23:20, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
the question is whether people are interested enough to comment...
...and maybe also how interested the author is to answer comments:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/27581/match=2026
[RFC 3700]
You still
On Jan 18, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A possible approach would be to use the cutoff dates as deadlines
for drafts to be placed on the WG agenda - i.e. allow automated
posting to continue unabated, but only allow late drafts to be
discussed in the meeting if so agreed during
On 2008-01-19 09:04, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
For the people who participate in a fair number of working groups in
the IETF, requiring early posting allows for a greater likelihood that
they will be able to at least skim each new draft sometime
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
For the people who participate in a fair number of working groups
in the IETF, requiring early posting allows for a greater
likelihood that they will be able to at least skim each new draft
sometime before setting up their laptop at the
John,
Your description of the reasons for having the draft sub-
mission dead-lines may agree with original thinking that went
into setting them, initially. However, there were collateral
benefits that the new automated submission process helps to
improve - but does not eliminate.
DÁccord.
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:47 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates
Importance: High
--On Friday, 18
*
* Section 4.4, second paragraph (s/may/MAY)
* Only a single PARTIAL search return option may be present in a single
* command.
* Should this be:
* Only a single PARTIAL search return option MAY be present in a single
* command.
*
*
* Best regards,
*
Hi.
The current cutoff schedule for Internet Drafts dates from my
time on the IESG (i.e., is ancient history). It was conditioned
on the pre-IETF rush and the observation that the Secretariat,
at the time, required a sufficiently long time to get drafts
posted in the pre-meeting rush that,
At 06:29 17/01/2008, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
a) when RFC 2821 was written IPv6 existed and RFC 2821 acknowledged
its existance. It did DID NOT say synthesize from .
RFC 2821 only talks about IPv6 domain literals. The MX resolution
Hi,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
At 12:49 16/01/2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:43 PM -0500 1/15/08, John C Klensin wrote:
A different version of the
same thinking would suggest that any document needing these
extended keywords is not ready for standardization and should be
published as Experimental and left there until the
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. Since this is now
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Bob Braden wrote:
*
* Section 4.4, second paragraph (s/may/MAY)
* Only a single PARTIAL search return option may be present in a single
* command.
* Should this be:
* Only a single PARTIAL search return option MAY be present in a single
*
On 2008-01-18 17:13, Joe Abley wrote:
On 17-Jan-2008, at 18:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational documents in the
On 18-Jan-2008, at 21:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I've always wondered what the designation for your information adds
to an RFC that is already labelled informational.
Me too. I hope to find out :-)
Joe
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
This is a reminder that the transition of the main IETF web site
began on Wednesday, 16 January. Virtually all changes to static web
pages are on hold until testing is completed and the actual cut-over
takes place on 31 January 2008.
This hold does not affect data driven web pages, web sites
22 matches
Mail list logo
