On Wed, 2011-08-03, Hector Santos wrote:
I would like to propose that new I-D submissions include information
about the existence of a Working Group, if any, and/or discussion
group list address, if any, for to join and participate in the
development of the I-D or simply to follow it.
I
On 2011-08-04 09:11, Bill McQuillan wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-03, Hector Santos wrote:
I would like to propose that new I-D submissions include information
about the existence of a Working Group, if any, and/or discussion
group list address, if any, for to join and participate in the
development
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
I think I have read some I-D that including this useful information,
but most do not. Its one the first things I look for.
Just a thought if it makes sense.
+100
Perhaps it could be included in the ID-Announce message.
04.08.2011 12:04, Peter Koch wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
I think I have read some I-D that including this useful information,
but most do not. Its one the first things I look for.
Just a thought if it makes sense.
+100
Perhaps it could be included
Brian == Brian Weis b...@cisco.com writes:
Brian Hi Sam, Thanks for your review.
Brian Your first comment is pointing out a typo (groupkey-pull
Brian should be groupkey-push), which I've fixed.
Brian The anti-replay description in Section 3.3 should not say
Brian that the
Yes. No. No. Yes. Maybe. Let me elaborate.
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely
widespread convention.
+1. The effect on users is completely different, even though the same
information is in there
Marc == Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org writes:
Marc I personally would like to switch to the Tufte style,
Marc (i.e. uploading a printout, which can also be distributed to
Marc people before the meeting in printed form, and having *only* a
Marc discussion), but I am not
--On Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:36 +0200 Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2011-08-04 09:11, Bill McQuillan wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-03, Hector Santos wrote:
I would like to propose that new I-D submissions include
information about the existence of a Working Group, if any,
On 8/4/2011 6:47 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
This should be mandatory in IDs.
...
But there are circumstances in which the appropriate mailing
list is not known at the time of posting and others in which
permission to use an obvious mailing list requires pre-approval
that might significantly
From: Hector Santos
I would like to propose that new I-D submissions include
information about the existence of a Working Group, if any,
and/or discussion group list address, if any, for to join
and participate in the development of the I-D or simply to
follow it.
We already have
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bill
McQuillan [mcqui...@pobox.com]
Perhaps it could be included in the ID-Announce message.
In a lot of situations, the I-D submission tool knows the name of the relevant
working group
and could include its mailing list
On 2011-08-04 16:11, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Hector Santos
I would like to propose that new I-D submissions include
information about the existence of a Working Group, if any,
and/or discussion group list address, if any, for to join
and participate in the development of the I-D or
On 8/4/2011 7:11 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Once one knows the WG name,
And when there is no working group that the document is associated with?
In addition, there is a certain degree of exclusionary culture that comes with a
requirement that a new reader know how to derive a
I don't know if there is a need for template changes or some formal
section in the write up, but it would seem to me that an author who
has reached a level of getting WG assigned and/or even started a
mailing list (IETF or otherwise) would be very eager to announce it in
a new I-D (01?)
-1.
This list complies with RFC 2919, which alleviates the need for the
horrible, unscalable, obsolete, ugly kludge of Subject-line tags.
I suggest that anyone who really, *really* wants them on their copies
of messages arrange to have them added locally (perhaps by procmail or
similar) and not
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Koch
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:04 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: I-D Working groups and mailing list
I-D announcements are already copied to the relevant WG for WG
On 8/3/11 1:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/3/11 1:49 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Why can't we get informative explanations of what problem non-WG
mailing lists are trying to address?
Purpose: This list is for discussion of IANA Registry issues to
result in Happy IETF, Happy W3C, and
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hector Santos
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:10 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Working groups and mailing list
I don't know if there is a need for template
Does IETF in it's scope deal with the BIOS on the hardware? Sorry if
I am off-topic. Perhaps there are some bright engineers reading this
that could help.
I am prepared to offer 200 euros if any engineer alters the BIOS
fonts to a font that I prefer using opensource, ?Coreboot. I am not a
How my suggestion was to be done, I left as open ended for the IETF
vets to consider if it makes sense, how its done and/or if already
provided, maybe highlight that info. Whatever. But most of all, I was
mostly suggesting a technical writing style or helpful guideline to
authors to consider.
Hello Authors,
I think it is worth adding some texts to describe mobile CPE case, in
which CPEs with wireless modem use 3GPP access as uplink.
Gang
2011/8/2, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following
Total of 239 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 5 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.44% | 13 | 7.08% | 112663 | hsan...@isdg.net
6.28% | 15 | 5.61% |89298 |
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths'
(draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-15.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching
23 matches
Mail list logo
