On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) flu...@cisco.com wrote:
Part of why you can't do this with DHCP is that clients are written so that
when an IP address fails to work for an application connection
(Dear OPs ADs, please read … )
I disagree with the advice in section 8. Cisco IP phones have been deployed
with DHCP options that use FQDN and with options that use IP addresses. For
this type of use case the FQDM turned out to be much better from an operational
and administration point of
This looks reasonable to me and given how much effort it has taken to get
agreement on theses words, I am not keen on any of the material changes I have
seen proposed.
On Aug 21, 2013, at 11:52 AM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the
deal with that?
I don't know if you ever got the Google VHDL code for VP8 but I have never got
it so I don't know what it does but if you do, that would be great.
On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry tterr...@xiph.org wrote:
Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
There is one thing
Resent on different list …
I would like to raise an issue interoperability with this payload specification
that we are currently having with WebRTC implementations. In WebRTC, and many
other places, you want SDP to be able to control the resolution of the image
(or at least the outer limits
Few thoughts.
1) don't get wrapped around the axel of STD, PS, Foo bar label, it has nothing
to do with the problem that that IESG believes many drafts need changes to fix
significant problems. Lots of people imply that the IESG is setting the bar too
high but when you look at the changes
inline
On May 14, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) flu...@cisco.com
wrote:
2) On the point of what the IESG should be doing, I would like to see the
whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria document
My read of this draft is that it eliminates the need for rough consensus at
both the WG and IETF level. Basically the WG chair can just decide and even if
the WG disagrees with the chair. If the WG does not have consensus in WGLC that
they they do want to publish the draft, it still gets
I was only peripherally involved in this and don't know all the in's and outs
of this but let me try and provide a bit of information and hopefully someone
from the IETF Trust or RFC Editor can correct me where I am wrong.
The internet draft was done with the normal boiler plate that granted
I like the whole and +1 to it. I can see the pros and cons of make drafts
actually go away but given it is impossible to get rid of a draft from the
internet, all we end up with in the current situation are the cons and none of
the pros.
I do have one suggested change
OLD
An I-D will only
10 matches
Mail list logo
