Ben,
Apologies for missing your additional questions. Please see below for a
response.
Best regards,
Matthew
From: Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com
To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) matthew.bo...@alcatel-lucent.com
Reply-to: b...@nostrum.com
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of
At 14:58 19-01-11, Donald Eastlake wrote:
It depends. That's why there are different versions of the boilerplate
depending on what rights the submitter is granting to the IETF.
I'll reproduce the notice for completeness:
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
At 07:56 14-01-11, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The 'about' URI scheme'
draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
To be honest, I'm not even clear on what the issue is.
If an organization creates a BCP in its own context based on the experiences of
its constituents, and then the IETF uses that material to inform its own BCP on
the same subject, and reasonable permission and attribution are given, what
That is why I really want to see a specific example of harm (which I note SM
has refused to do).
This is the sort of case where it is very easy to make the wrong decision if
people are allowed to waffle on about what they imagine to be high principle
when the rules were made the way they are to
The only thing I can dream up (without an example) is that the submitting
organization's version of something and the IETF's version end up diverging,
and the submitting organization doesn't like that. To wit, the submitting
organization wanted the added credibility of the RFC label without
I agree with SM's concern that the mechanism by which this is
extended is underspecified. The draft contains one reserved
token, blank, and a set of examples which make clear that there
is an unwritten set of known and unknown tokens which populate the segment
portion of the given ABNF.
At 03:31 PM 1/19/2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is pleased to announce Paris as the site for IETF 83 from 25 - 30
March 2012. The IETF last met in the city in 2005 at IETF 63.
Paris was the number one choice for a European venue in a venue
preference survey conducted after
Total of 73 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 21 00:53:02 EST 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
13.70% | 10 | 16.89% | 108644 | hal...@gmail.com
8.22% |6 | 11.13% |71600 |
2011/1/21, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com:
I agree with SM's concern that the mechanism by which this is
extended is underspecified. The draft contains one reserved
token, blank, and a set of examples which make clear that there
is an unwritten set of known and unknown tokens which populate
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6076
Title: Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance
Metrics
Author: D. Malas, A. Morton
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6083
Title: Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Author: M. Tuexen, R. Seggelmann,
E.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6084
Title: General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST)
over Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
13 matches
Mail list logo
