On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian,
This seems worth being a bit pedantic about, to make sure we all share the
same understanding: I take your interpretation to mean that the RFC Editor
can, on their own initiative, fix the problem(s) that Julan has raised and
that
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories) '
draft-jabley-sink-arpa-02.txt as a BCP
I would like to see a requirement (or at least a
If it's a good idea to have a registry of DNS names with special
meanings, I'd rather see one RFC that establishes and populates
a registry of them, perhaps as an update to RFC 2606.
Such a registry might also usefully include names that have special
meanings within DNS names such as _service
I have long held this view
Jim
-Original Message-
From: rfc-interest-boun...@rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-
boun...@rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 12:41 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: Olaf Kolkman; xml2...@lists.xml.resource.org; IETF
Date:Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From:IESG Secretary iesg-secret...@ietf.org
Message-ID: 20091223171501.7bae33a6...@core3.amsl.com
Given ...
| There exist codecs that can be widely implemented and easily
| distributed, but that are not standardized
Hi Robert,
Date:Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From:IESG Secretary iesg-secret...@ietf.org
Message-ID: 20091223171501.7bae33a6...@core3.amsl.com
Given ...
| There exist codecs that can be widely implemented and easily
| distributed, but that are not
Date:Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:48:18 +0200
From:Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
hannes.tschofe...@nsn.com
Message-ID:
3d3c75174cb95f42ad6bcc56eb450204c...@fiesexc015.nsn-intra.net
| That's something for the working group to figure out.
| My experience: things
Hi,
I am not sure but are you suggesting that the IETF will define the
requirements, metric and quality assessment requirements and all proposed
codecs should provide the results and then the WG will choose the best codec
bases without discussing the codec itself. This is what I would call a
Hi,
I am not sure but are you suggesting that the IETF will define the
requirements, metric and quality assessment requirements and all proposed
codecs should provide the results and then the WG will choose the best codec
bases without discussing the codec itself. This is what I would call a
Requirements Development RFP for Extension to the Data Tracker
The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), on behalf of the
IETF, announces this Request for Proposal to develop the requirements for
data tracker extensions for Working Group Chairs and Internet-Draft
Authors. The
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Real-time Applications
and Infrastructure Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet.
The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo
