How does the IETF put a big red warning sign on a document produced by
another standards body?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07. Actual coloring of
course is impossible.
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in
Joe
When I access it, I see a 3.08Mbyte .xml file in temporary storage.
Interestingly, the text variant is still 2.7Mbyte.
My access time is variable. When I first used the xml file, the access time was
always in minutes, time to make a coffee, come back and continue waiting. Now
it is
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-06
I understand Dave's concern, but I think it would be valuable to make it easy
to see
what has been requested. Any changes to the conflict list would still have to
come
through the chairs, encouraging that distributed work model.
I've entered this as an idea that someone might pick up for work
On 10/13/11 03:41 , t.petch wrote:
Joe
When I access it, I see a 3.08Mbyte .xml file in temporary storage.
Interestingly, the text variant is still 2.7Mbyte.
My access time is variable. When I first used the xml file, the access time
was
always in minutes, time to make a coffee, come
Hi, all,
Again, thanks for the suggestions.
I'll work with IANA to see if we can make things a bit more useful.
Joe
On 10/13/2011 12:28 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/13/11 03:41 , t.petch wrote:
Joe
When I access it, I see a 3.08Mbyte .xml file in temporary storage.
Interestingly, the text
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:36 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
I had been waiting a while for a quiet moment on the list to express my regret
at the passing of Watersprings - R.I.P.
Well, you will probably be glad to hear that it is in the process of being
resurrected.
It was down to
Nikos:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Suite B Profile for Transport Layer Security (TLS)'
draft-salter-rfc5430bis-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
Below are my comments on this draft, these are in addition to the comments
that I have provided previously. I also support the comments that propose
the deletion of sections 4, 5 and 6.
I have numbered my comments (1-12) to simplify identification for those
who wish to respond.
I do not
Total of 98 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 14 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.08% |4 | 9.50% |74596 | malcolm.be...@zte.com.cn
5.10% |5 | 4.94% |38766 |
10 matches
Mail list logo