On 2011-08-04 16:12, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
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
Hi Russ,
At 12:28 PM 8/3/2011, Russ Housley wrote:
I am well aware of the implementation reports. The premise here is
that the protocol specification is good enough there are at least
two interoperable implementations and the protocol is deployed
widely. The implementation report would
On 8/5/2011 1:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
In my experience, many ID authors actually forget to consider where to send
feedback. Thus making this something to be checked upon ID submission (maybe
with a way to opt-out) might be helpful.
+1
When something is a routine expectation it is
On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
-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
I note that there is an opening on the IETF meeting calendar for an
Asian meeting in 2013. Here is a suggestion:
Meeting Facilities:
http://www.qsncc.com/venue-information/our-facilities.html
There are 7 pages of Official Hotels, starting at about $60/night.
Official Hotels:
Dear Gang,
I would be inclined to say that within the 3GPP scope the client is always the
UE and its form factor or the end usage scenario does not really matter. It
does not change the way the UE is expected to behave from the 3GPP system point
of view, unless there is a new functional
I got one comment to our draft. Section 5.4 discusses some known neighbor
discovery issues out there. I forgot to add one that I believe belongs here or
then in Section 5.2; which one I am not sure yet. In Section 5.2 it is said
that the GGSN/PGW provides an unique IID to the UE (i.e.
Hector,
On 2011-08-04 14:35, Hector Santos wrote:
Brian E Carpenter asked:
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about
a) drafts that appear in the WG with very mature text, so complete
the WG progress very quickly?
b) drafts that are direct submissions to the IESG, and go through
--On Friday, August 05, 2011 12:45 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
-1.
This list complies with RFC 2919, which alleviates the need
for the horrible, unscalable, obsolete, ugly kludge of
Subject-line tags. I suggest
On 08/05/2011 09:45, Warren Kumari wrote:
Subject-line tags allow me to just drop everything in the inbox and then, at
a glance figure out what to read, and in what order. I then move the read
stuff (and that that I don't care about) into separate mailboxes.
To me it boils down to you saying
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Are you saying that the existing review process
for direct submission or Independent Submission RFCs fails to detect
work that overlaps with WGs?
At least in one experience, I would not say it was a failure per se
but more realistically, for many possible reasons, it
On 8/5/2011 2:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
To me it boils down to you saying in effect, Here is my way of working
with e-mail, and I'd like the IETF to support it. If there was a way
that we could do that which had no impact on people who don't work that
way (such as the List-Id header) then I'd
The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG
(bmwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Benchmarking Methodology for Link-State IGP Data Plane Route
Convergence'
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-23.txt as an Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a
The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG
(bmwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Terminology for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route
Convergence'
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-23.txt as an Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a
14 matches
Mail list logo
