- Original Message -
From: Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 6:09 PM
On Tue 07/Aug/2012 15:20:35 +0200 t.p. wrote:
From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com
Would it make it easier to find if they were called notes or
corrections instead
Original Message -
From: Geoff Mulligan ge...@proto6.com
To: Richard Shockey rich...@shockey.us
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 5:34 PM
I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even
permanently.
tp
So, would I despite London 2014 being only a train
Does anyone other than historians honestly care what the original was? I
mean, really?
Dave.
Wow,
your comment is a bit harsh, but it definitely makes some sense :-).
Even though I personally don't find recorded audio as useless as you
claim, audio quality might undoubtedly be better than it currently is.
What we are using now is one of the standard VoIP options provided by
It's also extremely important to consider that these guys are
providing the service at no cost to IETF. I can't fathom what the
cost would be if IETF were paying for something that might meet your
quality standards.
Thank you Mary for your support. Anyhow, I think the discussion on the
Too clarify something. The various experimental and ongoing volunteer
efforts and well as contractor provided services has non-trivial
trivial support costs even when they are delivered by volunteers
paying their own way. We can and should (and do) evaluate how we can
do better, whether
Recording at a sampling rate of 8 kHz in 2012? That's incomprehensible (in
both senses). And then applying some inferior compression scheme that inserts
heavy artifacts. They can do better. Much better. For exactly the same cost.
Again, we can do better, independently from the cost.
--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 09:27 +0100 Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.net wrote:
Does anyone other than historians honestly care what the
original was? I mean, really?
Dave,
RFCs are often incorporated by reference in procurement
documents and conformity requirements. If one were trying
It seems entirely reasonable that there needs to be a version available
that's precisely as-published, for legal (and quasi-legal) reasons, as you
say - however, that's the version produced by the RFC Editor, and not the
tools version (which is already non-normative, technically, due to the
On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
It seems entirely reasonable that there needs to be a version available that's
precisely as-published, for legal (and quasi-legal) reasons, as you say -
however, that's the version produced by the RFC Editor, and not the tools
version (which
--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 14:53 +0300 Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
This means that there would be two documents with the same RFC
number. The quasi-leagal as published one, and the one of
the tools site. Which should I follow when I go to implement?
Exactly
If the errors
On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 14:53 +0300 Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
This means that there would be two documents with the same RFC
number. The quasi-leagal as published one, and the one of
the tools site. Which should I
Hi,
On 2012-08-01 01:17 Ole Jacobsen said:
One feature request that I discussed with Henrik was to either
auto-detect I-D file names and handle them slightly differently
from RFC numbers (by putting the file name as the final entry)
OR just having two tools. With the kind of feedback Henrik
The fact that people plan badly does not mean that all planning must fail.
As Tom Knight pointed out when the IPv4 address size was chosen, there
aren't enough for one for each person living on the planet.
IPv6 has enough addresses to assign a subnet to every grain of sand on
the planet.
--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 17:11 +0300 Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
And, if I correctly understood it at the time, that is exactly
why the RFC Editor opposed the idea of formal errata for
years. If there were real, substantive, errors, a replacement
RFC should be published as
Remember that we are trying to build a network that is going to last
for hundreds if not thousands of years.
some of us do not have such hubris.
I don't think it likely that the RIRs or ICANN or even the IETF lasts
that long. If it does it will be in a very different form.
i suspect the
offlist.
Geoff,
Frankfurt is a city in Germany. I believe the IETF has never been there.
Other than those two tidbits about it, I've no idea what is to be
accomplished by someone's randomly throwing out the names of cities for
a discussion like this, especially when threads like these
On 8/8/2012 1:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
ps. btw, what is it that you think is different about this from the way
we /do/ discuss protocol specs?
People discussing venues are less willing to believe that anyone
else's experience or issues differ from their own.
A common problem in /any/
On 8/9/2012 8:07 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
offlist.
weird. i really did prune the list. sorry.
but then, it's not as if my concern applies only to Geoff's note...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
offlist.
Not so much
Geoff,
Frankfurt is a city in Germany. I believe the IETF has never been there.
Two more tidbits:
- It's a huge aviation hub. There are direct flights from everywhere, similar
to CDG, Heathrow, or Schiphol
- Unlike
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
So I'm confused... We're we talking about the possibility of
sticking to one European city, one north American city and one Asian
city and not picking various cities throughout the world.
Oh, I see. My reading was that we would focus on small
Frankfurt has been considered. Turns out that it is one of the most
expensive cities in all of Europe to have a conference. It is also
geared mostly towards large tradeshows. The Frankfurt Messe is about
the size of your average Olympic Park, just walking from the nearest
hotel to your venue
Hi,
one suggestion: I-Ds must be cited as Work in Progress only. From the
boilerplate text:
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
Besides where to to repeat, some new places to go that are cheaper and
closer to me (and possible to others, and perhaps not so bad to many).
Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Miami, Madrid, Cancun, Santiago, Panama, San
Juan
Regards,
as
On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:22, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Hubris? it has already lasted 40.
Hubris was proposing that the Clinton-Gore campaign deploy a Web
server in the White House when we had 100 people using it.
I can understand why people might not want to worry about long term
issues but not why you would want to insult people who do think about
Hi,
For new how is Dubai or Barcelona?
Repeat: I would like Prague, Vancouver, Quebec!
Regards,
D
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Besides where to to repeat, some new places to go that are cheaper
and closer to me (and possible to others, and
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [hal...@gmail.com]
As Tom Knight pointed out when the IPv4 address size was chosen, there
aren't enough for one for each person living on the planet.
Remember that we are trying to build a network that is going to last
for hundreds if not thousands of years.
From: Dave Cridland [d...@cridland.net]
Does anyone other than historians honestly care what the original was?
Does anyone honestly care what last month's version of the source code was?
Dale
Lawyers may, in both cases.
Stephan
On 8.9.2012 09:45 , Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote:
From: Dave Cridland [d...@cridland.net]
Does anyone other than historians honestly care what the original was?
Does anyone honestly care what last month's version of the source code
was?
Simon == Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca writes:
Simon Le 2012-08-08 12:34, Geoff Mulligan a écrit :
I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even
permanently.
Simon Does nobody care about going to new places so that new people
Simon are
Frankfurt?
On Aug 8, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Dave Crocker dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
On 8/8/2012 11:46 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
So then why not consider, London, Paris (not the Concorde Lafayette),
Frankfurt, Amsterdam?
shockingly, amsterdam can't handle the ietf. wrong mix of
So I'm confused... We're we talking about the possibility of sticking to one
European city, one north American city and one Asian city and not picking
various cities throughout the world.
I was just suggesting picking -a- city in Europe that was not multiple hops
from most US hubs. Prague,
So then why not consider, London, Paris (not the Concorde Lafayette),
Frankfurt, Amsterdam?
On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote:
You said about Prague:
...[do] folks who live outside of that region not care about the
additional hop of travel to get to it?
+1
Regards,
as
On 8 Aug 2012, at 16:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
Let's innovate for that third meeting, realizing that we do not yet
have a preferred place in Asia, or any place in Africa or South America,
but maybe we should.
On Aug 8, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Simon Does nobody care about going to new places so that new people
Simon are exposed to the IETF and may start getting involved?
Simon We've seen this positive effect many times when we went
Simon outside our comfort
On 8/9/2012 11:37 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
Frankfurt is a city in Germany. I believe the IETF has never been
...
I've found it relatively inexpensive, clean and very easy to get to.
Ole's comment was reflecting secretariat and IAOC research.
Individual experience can be very misleading
I haven't been at any IETF recently, but from my previous
experience, I agree with several commenters about these
cities:
* MINNEAPOLIS consistently works well for IETF meetings.
* VANCOUVER consistently works well for IETF meetings.
* DUBLIN has good air transport links, and would have
--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:55 -0700 Dave Crocker
dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
This is why I threw out a not so random city name -
Frankfurt.
Indeed, random was the wrong word. That word is often used
incorrectly. The correct word is arbitrary.
It is frankly entirely arbitrary to
Why not consider Istanbul? It's another nice harbor city.
Has a series of world class hotels like Grand Hyatt, Hilton,
InterContinental, Radisson Blu but also less expensive hotels, close to
each other.
Cheers,
Mehmet
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Istanbul, Dubai, and similar places will not allow all of us in the
community to participate in the meetings
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:20 PM
To: ext
Let me say that a different way. We sometimes have to tolerate
countries, like the US, who a fussy about visas or immigration
procedures for people coming from specific other countries. I
wish we didn't. But, as soon as a country says if you have a
passport from X, you aren't getting in, don't
Yes, and sadly that rules out really good venues such as Kuala Lumpur, quite
possibly the least expensive (hotel wise) suitable location in Asia.
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor Publisher
http://cisco.com/ipj
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Aug 2012, at 13:42, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Let me
On 8/9/12 2:42 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Let me say that a different way. We sometimes have to tolerate
countries, like the US, who a fussy about visas or immigration
procedures for people coming from specific other countries. I
wish we didn't. But, as soon as a country says if you have a
Yes, and sadly that rules out really good venues such as Kuala
Lumpur, quite possibly the least expensive (hotel wise) suitable
location in Asia.
The IAOC researched this recently, quite thoroughly; Ole and I are both
biased towards wanting it. (I lived there for a year.)
This is worth
But, as soon as a country says if you have a
passport from X, you aren't getting in, don't even bother to
apply for a visa, they should be off our list of possibilities.
It is sad to hear this. I actually never heard such restrictions for
people travelling to Turkey.
BTW: A lot of
We HAVE a requirements document.
Ole
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Agreed.
Dare I say that we need a requirements document? ;-)
Peter
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
On 8/9/12 3:31 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
We HAVE a requirements document.
Aha, so it's just that people at the mic haven't read the draft. That
never happens at one of our meetings, does it? ;-)
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find this requirements document in the
datatracker...
Peter
--
This is worth mentioning because the MY formal rule is not strict
prohibition but a formal visa process that is so onerous as to equate to
a prohibition.
Wouldn't that rule out the United States? It is my impression that
getting a US visa for someone with a Cuban or Iranian passport is
Folks,
The Broadband Forum has sent a liaison statement to the IETF regarding a New
Project - Broadband Access Service Attributes and Performance Measures.
Click on the following link for details:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/.
Please review and send comments to this list.
Hubris? it has already lasted 40.
and it's such a short way from 40 to hundreds or thousands. i get it.
I can understand why people might not want to worry about long term
issues but not why you would want to insult people who do think about
them.
first, i did not insult anyone. if you
hi. I regret having to do this. I realize the nomcom is important, and
it's a valuable way to contribute to the community. Unfortunately, I've
taken on some responsibilities since the nomcom call for volunteers.
I'm no longer sure that I will have the time to do as good of a job on
the nomcom as
Total of 245 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 10 00:53:03 EDT 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.31% | 13 | 8.41% | 168471 | mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
4.90% | 12 | 4.16% |83408 |
Fascinating! So if the Geolocation says Boston your algorithms, based on past
behavior I presume, can pinpoint the location.
All the best, Ashok
On 8/8/2012 5:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 8 August 2012 15:37, Ashok Malhotraashok.malho...@oracle.com wrote:
In the Geolocation work, one of
53 matches
Mail list logo
