On 16/08/2012 09:10, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
...
4) What is the relationship between this document and the mission of the
ISOC, which, as I understand it, is to promote the open development,
evolution, and use of the Internet?
The Internet Society needs to speak for themselves.
Quite
On 15/08/2012 07:24, Eliot Lear wrote:
John,
On 8/15/12 12:03 AM, John E Drake wrote:
Hi,
Does this document actually have a purpose, and if so, what is it?
To me (and I speak only for me here), the purpose of this document is to
articulate principles that have made the Internet a
On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:41 PM, John E Drake wrote:
JD: To what purpose? As an aside, I get the 'feel-good' aspect, but is
there anything more?
When RFC 1984 was published, I was serving as IAB Chair and found myself invited
here and there to give talks to men in suits. Since crypto policy was
On 13/08/2012 04:03, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected
a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks. Efficiency
suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.
At the risk of being at
Dave,
On 12/08/2012 17:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process
because this is such a wonderful cause'.
It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing
rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or
For those utterly mystified by the recent message under the above subject
header, let me note that my spam folder earlier today included a rather
incomprehensible message from JFC Morfin. I'm about to add jean-michel
bernier de portzamparc to my spam filters too, of course.
Alternatively, you
I support this too.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 10/08/2012 23:55, Bob Hinden wrote:
I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document.
Bob
On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards
On 11/08/2012 14:07, JOHNSON, ALASTAIR (ALASTAIR) wrote:
There were 10 participants from Australia and 4 participants from New
Zealand at the last IETF meeting. There was interest to have the IETF in
New Zealand. I guess that it was considered as difficult to convince the
cookie-eating mob
On 11/08/2012 10:39, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I wish to thank Phillip and Eric for their illuminating comments.
However, I'm still not clear on the role that great powers may play in
the standards development and deployment, compared to that of vested
interests.
Traditionally, and still
On 11/08/2012 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
...
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really
appropriate in this case.)
The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in
On 08/08/2012 06:30, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/07/2012 10:19 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 5021742a.70...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 08/07/2012 00:46, Martin Rex wrote:
IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
Avoiding the renumbering implies
On 06/08/2012 23:02, Martin Rex wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
whatever the number of address bits, if it is fixed, we always run out.
memory addressing has been a cliff many times. ip addressing. ...
Yup. To quote Fred Brooks on memory address space: Every successful
:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
On 06/08/2012 23:02, Martin Rex wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
whatever the number of address bits, if it is fixed, we always run out.
memory addressing has been a cliff many times. ip addressing
On 02/08/2012 19:17, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Brian,
Perhaps we understand a different thing by xml schema As example what
I had in mind when asking this question was the example from Appendix
A of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-schema-00 where
while perhaps not yet complete
On 02/08/2012 21:30, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:44 AM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
we should instead focus on the ways that the technical architecture of
the Internet creates control points that are
Hi,
In general this seem like a Good Thing. However, I have a slight confusion
caused by these two extracts:
Openness. Standards processes are open to all interested and informed
parties.
...
4. Availability. Standards are made accessible to all for implementation and
deployment under fair
I think anyone with intimate experience of the Web Services standards
experiment (trying to use XML as if it was a Turing machine) would have
extreme doubts about any proposal to impose such a requirement.
It was not for no reason that many people came to refer to the Web
Services family of
work
in this area
Scott
On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Under the long-standing IETF policy defined in RFC 2804, I trust
we will not be discussing this draft, or
draft-balaji-l2vpn-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis, in the IETF.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 30/07
Under the long-standing IETF policy defined in RFC 2804, I trust
we will not be discussing this draft, or
draft-balaji-l2vpn-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis, in the IETF.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 30/07/2012 09:26, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the
On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Under the long-standing IETF policy defined in RFC 2804, I trust
we will not be discussing this draft, or
draft-balaji-l2vpn-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis, in the IETF.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 30/07/2012 09:26, internet-dra
On 21/07/2012 02:30, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
As for the Ramadan issue: we've had IETF meetings during Jewish holidays a
few times, and folks dealt with it as best they can. If there are some
accommodations that can be made at any IETF
On 20/07/2012 14:07, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to
subpoenas and
other legal requests.
Do it. This will dissuade trivial requests
Did I miss an announcement of the change in format of
I-D announcement messages?
There's no longer a URL for the standard .txt format. That's
mildly annoying for me (extra time and extra mouse clicks)
and must be a nuisance for anyone who processes these messages
automatically.
At least, I would
John,
On 2012-06-12 19:38, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 19:13 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
The above is at odds with standardization. The last reason
does not apply for Expert review.
I don't understand that statement. RFC 5226 says
On 2012-06-12 17:31, SM wrote:
Hi Peter,
At 07:19 12-06-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
By my reading, the happiana discussions [1] over the 12+ months have
led most participants to the conclusion that registration does not imply
standardization, and that it's not the role of the designated
On 2012-06-10 17:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
This draft should formally obsolete RFC 4677. Otherwise, I think it's fine.
This doesn't need to be in the document, but having a fixed location for
the pending version might be good, e.g. http://www.ietf.org/draft-tao.html .
Regards
Brian Carpenter
Editor. Thus, the IESG should have final say for
what the Tao says when it is a web page.
The IESG's final say is of course always in the context of determining
IETF consensus.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2012-06-10 11:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This draft should formally obsolete RFC
On 2012-05-31 07:22, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
* I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in some way
out of date. I don't know whether this is true,
That sound like somebody's personal opinion, but it is still a BCP
and therefore still represents IETF consensus.
but if
On 2012-05-31 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Overall I continue to think that this is a helpful document, as were its
predecessors.
That said, I would assume that many potential readers of this document
are not native English speakers. Thus I suggest that the more colloquial
words and
3.2.4. IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
The core registrar for the IETF's activities is the IANA (see
http://www.iana.org). Many Internet protocols require that someone
keep track of protocol items that were added after the protocol came
out. Typical examples of the
On 2012-05-31 07:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2012 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The
informal
style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it.
Let's separate use of colloquial language from overall
John,
On 2012-05-31 15:53, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, May 31, 2012 07:31 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-05-31 07:22, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
* I've been told by some that the Mission of the IETF is in
some way out of date. I don't know
John,
On 2012-05-31 16:19, John C Klensin wrote:
...
Assuming Paul isn't planning to get this published as an RFC and
then immediately retire from the IETF and that we don't have a
delusion that this document will not need to be maintained and
updated as things change, I propose the
On 2012-05-31 09:24, SM wrote:
...
In Section 3.2.3:
Approves the appointment of the IANA
Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision?
The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again.
Brian
On 2012-05-28 16:51, Tim Bray wrote:
Who are these people? -T
politicallyIncorrect
So far, fortunately, the Internet Governance Forum and its associated
talking shops add up to a no-op. The danger is always there that they
will persuade government reps in the ITU or other UN bodies to take
On 2012-05-28 17:38, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 05:20:10PM +0100,
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
So far, fortunately, the Internet Governance Forum
Hold on, the Internet Governance Caucus I was talking
On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote:
...
But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO.
Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear that
upper case keywords are optional (These words are often capitalized).
Indeed, numerous standards track documents don't use them.
On 2012-05-20 17:29, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, May 20, 2012 07:53 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote:
...
But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO.
Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes
On 2012-05-18 19:27, Randy Bush wrote:
I recommend an errata to RFC 2119: These words MUST NOT appear in a
document in lower case.
first, that is not an erratum, it is a non-trivial semantic change.
second, do we not already have enough problems being clear and concise
without removing
On 2012-05-16 18:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 5/16/12 9:58 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
I'll note that in my normal reading mode I do not distinguish case,
but even so I find the ability to use may and should in RFC text without
the 2119 implications valuable.
Agreed. But as a gen-art
On 2012-05-10 03:18, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 5/9/12 6:40 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue
of violation without some sort of burden of proof.
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet
another way
I'd like to be reassured that this has been carefully reviewed
by the IETF counsel and the IETF Trust. In particular I would
be interested in its possible interaction with the IETF's
liability insurance.
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone
they believe has
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian
E Carpenter
Sent: 09 May 2012 09:52
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions
Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational
RFC
I'd like to be reassured that this has
9, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yoav,
IANAL, but as far as I know libel suits are normally against individuals
(or media outlets such as newspapers). The defence against a libel
suit in the British courts, the most popular jurisdiction for
international libel suits, is factual
On 2012-05-05 04:48, Yoav Nir wrote:
...
an obvious idea would be to change the requirements for a new work item from
rough consensus to a bunch of people willing to do the work and at least
one willing to implement. Some working groups already work like this, but
it's not universal.
Since the topic was raised here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/26/girls_in_ict_day/
Note the comment about the need for role models.
Regards
Brian
Dear IAOC,
I suggest that your standard dealings with local hosts should
include requiring them to perform a local check on whether the
standard Note Well takes account of all local legal requirements,
including for example consent to publication of images. If it doesn't,
the host should provide
Christian,
On 2012-04-25 08:57, Christian Huitema wrote:
Brian,
I suggest that your standard dealings with local hosts should include
requiring them to perform a local check on
whether the standard Note Well takes account of all local legal
requirements, including for example
consent
On 2012-04-23 09:13, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
On Apr 23, 2012, at 0:05, EXT - joe...@bogus.com joe...@bogus.com wrote:
(quoting from RFC 2418)
All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These
minutes should
On 2012-03-23 05:48, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
...
In regard to URIs:
People have spoken about the annoyance of using % to introduce the
zone identifier, and the fact that % is special in URIs and would
need escaping, etc. But (1) it's unlikely anyone will write URIs with
zone
On 2012-03-22 09:43, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 19, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
I've obviously not been doing all my homework, and RFC 4007 slipped my
attention. Worse, for all the communication my IPv6 nodes are doing amongst
themselves using link-local addresses, it's
Fred,
On 2012-03-22 13:29, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In other words if the IETF doesn't define the zone index, every
implementor will have to do so anyway. Also, read the last clause
carefully: it says the stack MUST allow OPTIONAL use
On 2012-03-21 04:11, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 09:24 +0100 t.petch
daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
There is currently a thread in 6man on
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:
draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00.txt
On 2012-03-15 13:33, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
...
I suppose I could live with this - but not actively support it - if the
stripping was limited to abusively large attachments - say ones over 5Mb or
thereabouts.
+0.9; maybe set the limit a bit lower, for those who still have network
Martin,
Yes, the issues with an unconditional prefer IPv6 approach
have been noted, and operating systems of the vintages you
mention certainly deserved criticism. In fact this has been a
major focus of IPv6 operational discussions, and lies behind
things like the DNS whitelisting method, the
On 2012-02-24 12:32, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
In message 01occ10b11tc00z...@mauve.mrochek.com,
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com w
rites:
...
I contend that OS are IPv6 ready to exactly the same extent as they
are IPv4 ready. This isn't a IPv6 readiness issue. It is a
*application*
On 2012-02-18 08:10, Bob Hinden wrote:
Noel,
On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
the other reason why we went with 128-bit address with a 64/64 split
as the common case and defining IIDs that indicate if they have
global uniqueness.
I'd like to support this draft, having reviewed it carefully. Shim6
is running code whose time will come, and this document is useful
background for implementation and deployment.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 2012-02-15 09:35, Randy Bush wrote:
Do you, or do you not, object to the proposed change that changes the
text from saying, This space may be used just as 1918 space to This
space has limitations and cannot be used as 1918 space?
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no
Martin,
One the one hand, the IETF was frowning upon NATs when they were
developed outside of the IETF. But if you look at the IETFs
(lack of) migration plan, the translation that you need in order
to make old-IPv4 interoperate with new-IPv6, is actually worse than
an IPv4 NAT.
I'm sorry,
On 2012-02-15 11:45, Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Martin,
One the one hand, the IETF was frowning upon NATs when they were
developed outside of the IETF. But if you look at the IETFs
(lack of) migration plan, the translation that you need in order
to make old-IPv4
On 2012-02-14 05:51, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
do you suggest will?
I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?
Lots of CPE is actually owned
Martin Rex wrote:
...
It was the IETFs very own decision to build IPv6 in a fashion that it is
not transparently backwards compatible with IPv4. If the is anyone to
blame for the current situation, than it is the IETF, not the consumers
or the ISPs (except for those folks at ISPs who
On 2012-02-14 13:32, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/13/2012 4:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
People say this from time to time, but it's a complete myth.
well, not completely...
IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
Therefore, mathematically
On 2012-02-14 13:42, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/13/2012 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There were very specific reasons why this was not done.
Is there a useful citation that covers this strategic decision?
You may recall that at the time, we were very concerned about the
pre-CIDR
On 2012-02-11 11:09, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 07:47, Chris Donley wrote:
Please remember that this draft is in support of ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5.
Partially, sure. But RFCs apply to the whole Internet.
Hear hear.
IMO, an IETF RFC is not the correct place to tell ARIN or other
On 2012-02-09 10:41, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:12 59PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 -0800 james woodyatt
j...@apple.com wrote:
...
TAI has a fairly stable foundation in non-relativistic
physics, which experience has shown to be somewhat
Pete,
We seem to be agreeing violently.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2012-02-02 11:33, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1/31/12 1:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IMHO the text should make it
clear that this is the wrong way to use it and give the reasons
why - basically the same information
Hi Pete,
On 2012-02-01 08:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1/31/12 11:59 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Is that wise? I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the whole
reason for
allocating this space was that 1918 space _couldn't_ easily be used
for
Hi,
Shared Address Space is IPv4 address space designated for Service
Provider use with the purpose of facilitating CGN deployment. Also,
Shared Address Space can be used as additional [RFC1918] space when
at least one of the following conditions is true:
o
On 2012-01-21 03:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we need to get rid of
the arbitrary correction factors introduced by leap seconds.
Time is and always will be an arbitrary measurement scheme, and the only
thing that makes sense for the
And don't assume that just because ISOC is on the case that this
situation is covered. It's a real threat and every ITU Secretary-General
since 1999* has been trying to grab these powers, supported by more
or less authoritarian governments.
*The last S-G who was not trying this was Pekke
On 2012-01-04 10:03, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 15:54 -0500 Eric Burger
ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
Actually (s), the IETF *does* get credit for rooms sold.
We reconcile the attendee list with hotel guests. Go for it.
In a way, that is really too bad.
Also, in general, we have operated on the basis that if people aren't
interested enough in a work item or draft to actually work on it or
review it, then the work item isn't really important to the community.
This even applies to drafts that I write, if nobody is interested ;-).
When all work
Hi,
On 2011-12-16 09:20, Robert Sparks wrote:
There are three pages exposed at the datatracker that have become stale
or are producing erroneous information.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/ann/ind/
IESG Statements on Independent Submissions
This is in theory very useful information. I
On 2011-12-08 06:26, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
Subpoenas
Subpoenas? Really? Wow!
Well, that should scare a few people off... :-)
Subpoenas served on the IETF (Trust) about prior art or IPR disclosure,
not on individuals. It was never a problem
On 2011-12-08 08:41, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:15 PM
On 2011-12-08 06:26, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Dave CROCKER d
On 2011-12-06 18:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
The so-called IPv6 privacy addresses are terminology fud.
No, there is no fear, uncertainty or doubt involved. If you don't want
to be traceable by your MAC address, use privacy addresses. That will
even conceal from parents which child is
Martin,
Renumbering the internal network would be completely silly.
You certainly do not want any interruptions of the local network traffic
just because you frequently change the address on the external interface for
privacy reasons.
This is why ULAs are useful. People just need to get used
On 2011-12-06 15:00, Martin Rex wrote:
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
In case you didn't see this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Netfilter-developers-working-on-NAT-for-ip6tables-1385877.html
It's a complete IPv6 NAT implementation with the functionality of
the IPv4 one in the same
On 2011-12-06 15:40, Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
In case you didn't see this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Netfilter-developers-working-on-NAT-for-ip6tables-1385877.html
It's a complete IPv6 NAT implementation
On 2011-12-03 06:12, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:24 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical
developments, I would suggest
a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an
appeal. Specific
are also going to happen within the ISP network /
back-office etc. 172.16.0.0/12 is used there.
Daryl
On 30 November 2011 20:52, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2011-12-01 09:28, Chris Grundemann wrote:
...
It is more conservative to share a common pool.
It suddenly
On 2011-12-01 09:28, Chris Grundemann wrote:
...
It is more conservative to share a common pool.
It suddenly occurs to me that I don't recall any serious analysis
of using 172.16.0.0/12 for this. It is a large chunk of space
(a million addresses) and as far as I know it is not used by default
in
Does it support RFC 6296?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-12-01 13:07, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
In case you didn't see this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Netfilter-developers-working-on-NAT-for-ip6tables-1385877.html
It's a complete IPv6 NAT implementation with the
On 2011-11-29 08:10, IETF Chair wrote:
Ted:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial
draft, and then this
On 2011-11-15 03:24 Brian E Carpenter said:
Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page
at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX?
Not everybody has paid the ransom necessary to open PPTX files.
___
Ietf
On 2011-11-29 14:51, John Levine wrote:
Here is some relevant language from the Complaint:
100. By their failures to monitor and enforce the SSO Rules, and to
respond to TruePosition's specific complaints concerning violations of the
SSO Rules, 3GPP and ETSI have acquiesced in, are
I refrained from commenting during the IETF Last Call, and I think it might
help the IESG to reach the least bad decision if I say why.
This whole proposal will *never* be palatable to me. However, it may be
reasonable for the IETF to lay down appropriate restrictions, even though
we know that
On 2011-11-19 07:46, David Morris wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, John R. Levine wrote:
* - You don't want to get locked into open source, credited to an IBM
salesman
Because once you try an open source mail reader, you'll never want to go
back to Lotus Notes? :-)
That was way before IBM
Please see the reader comment by Oor Nonny-Muss on this story to understand its
relevance to the IETF.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/salad_leaf_turns_out_to_be_dead_bird/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 2011-11-15 23:13, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
+1
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's
unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where
you
On 2011-11-16 13:56, John Levine wrote:
What is much more important is that the data formats used by the
IETF will still be fully supported in 15-20 years. For a new,
and more so a proprietary data format, ...
I'm confused. When you say a proprietary data format, I presume you
mean
Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page
at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX?
Not everybody has paid the ransom necessary to open PPTX files.
--
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
Ietf mailing list
On 2011-10-31 23:18, Dave Cridland wrote:
That said, I think our existing chatrooms are configured not to have history
- presumably to avoid confusing when they're only used for three single weeks
throughout the year.
Indeed. This is a major annoyance when joining a session late or
that
people can find them later
Scott
On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/31/2011 13:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think all the rooms at jabber.ietf.org should have history enabled, but
cleared
out just prior to each meeting.
+1
--
Nothin' ever doesn't
There's a reason we use email here. It's called time zones.
Jabber doesn't work when people are spread across all time
zones.
There are forum-style mechanisms that also avoid the time zone
problem, but I've never found them as convenient as threaded
email.
Brian (Saturday morning, 10:50 a.m)
On 2011-10-28 09:07, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:24 -0500 Mary Barnes
mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
No food or beverages are allowed to be brought into the
meeting rooms and working group sessions unless
specifically served by the IETF.
[MB] In my
is a misnomer; it is not a
locator/identifier split. It's a global locator to site locator
mapping. This was pointed out some time ago...
Brian
Original Message
Subject: draft-farinacci-lisp-00
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:32:16 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter b...@zurich.ibm.com
201 - 300 of 1719 matches
Mail list logo
