I support the goal of this document, i.e. to publish the text in the
IANA repository as an RFC.
There are differences between the text in the current IANA repository
and the document. These differences are not spelled out in the document
for the 'tls-server-end-point' channel binding. The
John,
Dave, I disagree, at least slightly, but that is because I
suffer from a concern --documented in a request for review and
previous notes to this list-- that the IAOC/Trustees are _not_
doing their job, or at least the part of that job that requires
keeping the community informed about the
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-10-06 10:20, Richard Shockey wrote:
The Utility Industry does not understand the current IPv4 number exhaust
problem ...
Ironic, really, since IP addresses for every streetlight was one of
the favourite examples in the IPng days.
+1
EPRI was an active
Cullen,
For purposes of discussion, one comment below and one addition
to your list...
--On Monday, October 05, 2009 11:07 -0600 Cullen Jennings
flu...@cisco.com wrote:
I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked
and thought I might summarize some of the responses I got back
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal
implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are
treating China unfairly in this discussion...
On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
The PGP Key signing is a good question - I have no idea -
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I support the goal of this document, i.e. to publish the text in the
IANA repository as an RFC.
There are differences between the text in the current IANA repository
and the document. These differences are not spelled out in
FYI
- Forwarded message from ji...@ties.itu.ch -
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:46:53 +0200
From: ji...@ties.itu.ch
Reply-To: ji...@ties.itu.ch
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements (Requirements for
OAMin MPLS Transport Networks) to Proposed Standard
To:
Hi Adrian,
Sorry for the mistake, I have resend the mail to IETF.
As for your comments about specific requirements, IMHO, I think most of the
requirements in the document are actually a little bit generic.And requirement
21 of RFC 5654 is so generic as well. The proposed requirement is
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was no
contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in
arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting.
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of
The ANA Hotel plans to ozone-deodorize all rooms in the IETF block,
simply because the vast majority of our delegates prefer non smoking
rooms.
Alexa
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Hi Alexa,
How should one go about expressing to the hotel that they preferred
The IESG has received a request from the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation WG (forces) to consider the following document:
- 'SCTP based TML (Transport Mapping Layer) for ForCES protocol '
draft-ietf-forces-sctptml-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in
The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l3vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for supporting Customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS
IP-VPN '
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-04.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to
The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
- 'POP3 Support for UTF-8 '
draft-ietf-eai-pop-07.txt as an Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
14 matches
Mail list logo
