I would like to chime in on this aspect of John's note...
I'd also suggest that those who don't like FTP and think we
should do no more work on it should not be complaining about
this draft, or others, but should be writing an I-D explaining
their case. If they can get enough consensus to get
At 10:15 AM -0500 5/13/10, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
As a new IAB member, I'm becoming disturbed about the number of things that
I'm tripping over that everyone knows, but we haven't written down yet. The
list of reasons we need to punt FTP seems to be one of those things that we
should be
On 5/12/10 9:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Doug,
Let's separate two issues. One is whether or not this
particular proposal, with or without RFC 4217 (an existing
Proposed Standard), is appropriate. If it is not, or cannot
exist in harmony with 4217, then it reinforces my view that it
should not
Total of 109 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 14 00:53:01 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.59% |5 | 4.82% |31374 | d3e...@gmail.com
3.67% |4 | 5.64% |36758 |
The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport WG (avt)
to consider the following document:
- 'Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Security Mechanism '
draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-05.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6 '
draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-13.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and
Handoff Optimization Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
The MARTINI WG will be having a Virtual Interim meeting on June 16, 2010
from 11 AM - 1 PM Pacific Time. Conference parameters for the meeting
will be announced on the MARTINI WG mailing list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini/current/maillist.html
