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-gp-obsolete-icmp-types-iana-01
apologies for latency, many meetings and a conference in the last couple of
weeks.
BenL replied:
On 1 January 2013 21:50, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote:
[ in the below discussion:
the spec, this spec refers to draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-05.
TLS-CT client refers to a TLS client
I've recent had to write a program to interface with a SIP lync server and
in doing so have had to code to several rfcs. After reading and dealing
with implementation of the various rfcs I have read I have come up with
what I consider A modest proposal to fix some of the problems I've seen
with
On 1/21/13 7:57 PM, William Jordan wrote:
Whoever thought it was a good idea to
allow multiple ways of doing the same exact thing would hopefully be
deterred by actually writing code to do it.
I think there's general agreement that options are not a good thing and
a pretty decent
On Jan 22, 2013, at 08:05, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
why you're specifically requesting implementations in C
I think his argument is that the spec author should be punished for each piece
of fluff in the spec.
A sentiment that I can relate to.
Having to write C code
On 1/21/13 10:20 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Having to write C code probably does qualify as the appropriate
punishment :-)
I guess that depends on your background ...
And too bad we can't have the IESG implement it while
reviewing it.
There we go. That would cut down on the I'll support
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
And too bad we can't have the IESG implement it while
reviewing it.
There we go. That would cut down on the I'll support your
awful idea if you support my awful idea horse trading.
No, it just means that I have to implement my awful idea and
