On 13.01.2011 03:56, Doug Ewell wrote:
Donald Eastlake wrote:
Almost all registries I'm familiar with explicitly list unassigned
ranges.
The IANA Language Subtag Registry doesn't:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry
Obviously it depends on the datatype whether saying
Hello all,
Let me cite RFC 5226, that says:
...
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST
provide clear instructions on details of
On 13.01.2011 10:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
Let me cite RFC 5226, that says:
...
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
We can have as high a barrier as necessary to ensure there are no more
than, say, 12 posters.
That means someone has to judge them and that takes time.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
+1. Very
13.01.2011 13:31, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 10:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
Let me cite RFC 5226, that says:
...
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g.,
13.01.2011 13:28, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
The reviewer furthermore states, following the rules in
RFC4395 the document should provide concrete contact information for
the
editor instead of an anonymous email address only.
That would be corrected so that the author will be IETF
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error to me.
any ranges to be *reserved* for Unassigned...
doesn't make any sense at all. They are not reserved.
Yes, that is a type of error, but the meaning is that unassigned and
reserved values MUST
13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error to me.
any ranges to be *reserved* for Unassigned...
doesn't make any sense at all. They are not reserved.
Yes, that is a type of error, but the meaning is
On 13.01.2011 17:08, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error to me.
any ranges to be *reserved* for Unassigned...
doesn't make any sense at all. They are not reserved.
Yes,
13.01.2011 18:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 17:08, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error to me.
any ranges to be *reserved* for Unassigned...
doesn't make any
On 13.01.2011 17:14, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST
provide clear instructions on details
The reviewer furthermore states, following the rules in
RFC4395 the document should provide concrete contact information for
the
editor instead of an anonymous email address only.
That would be corrected so that the author will be IETF and contact -
IESG.
I am not really sure whether this
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mykyta
Yevstifeyev [evniki...@gmail.com]
Mentioning my full contact data makes no sense. I can hardly imagine
that somebody will come to Ukraine, search Kotovsk (that is rather small
town)
I agree with Dale. I have subscriber database of with around 30,000
records and the churn in e-mail addresses is much higher than
changes in postal information. Of course in (some parts of) the real
world, the concept of forwarding, address correction etc exists so
that I (sometimes) get
I would also point out that there is a difference between a contact for
a draft and a contact for a registry.
For a draft, there is always an individual contact. We frequently
accept that the only contact information is an email address.
For a registry, the contact information requirement
On 1/13/11 10:53 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I would also point out that there is a difference between a contact for
a draft and a contact for a registry.
For a draft, there is always an individual contact. We frequently
accept that the only contact information is an email address.
For a
Many believe it makes it very clear to the users of the registry what is
available for assignment. Something we will be rolling out soon (for those
registries with a finite space) will be small charts showing how much of the
registry space is unassigned, assigned and reserved (utilizing the
On 13.01.2011 21:43, Michelle Cotton wrote:
Many believe it makes it very clear to the users of the registry what is
available for assignment. Something we will be rolling out soon (for those
registries with a finite space) will be small charts showing how much of the
registry space is
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Bob,
agree with James request for more detail on the used day passes, if
possible.
Personally, I believe the risen cost for day passes probably knocked out
some of the demand (basic supply-demand curve from economics ;-) ).
Probably
(please view this email with UTF-8 enabled on your viewer)
This is a request for internet engineers to increase the character limit for
registration in the various internet domain names (com, net, org, info etc)
from 63 characters to more at least 76 or 68 or 91 or 83 or 64, the higher
it is the
Too many applications have the existing DNS segment lengths encoded.
I suggest that you instead consider.
hare.krishna.hare.krishna.krishna.krishna.hare.hare.hare.rama.hare.ramarama.rama.hare.hare
You would have to talk to ICANN to get the .hare TLD assigned.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM,
Total of 113 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 14 00:53:02 EST 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
0.88% |1 | 35.69% | 447080 | f...@cisco.com
9.73% | 11 | 4.45% |55771 |
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
For what it's worth, Section 10 of the informational RFC 2223
(Instructions to RFC Authors) states:
Each RFC must have at the very end a section giving the author's
address, including the name and postal address, the telephone number,
(optional: a FAX number) and the
I wrote:
I [...] edited both RFC 4645 and 5646 as Consultant.
s/5646/5645/
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
24 matches
Mail list logo
