The reason that RFC 2606 was made a BCP was that, at the time, it was
felt that a document with that level or approval was needed to reserve
domain names in the global Internet. Alternatively, it could have been
done with a standards track document, but that seemed inappropriate.
As has been
Standards track RFC 4343 was issued within the past five years (January
2006 to be precise). It contains some example domain names that do not
follow the suggestions in RFC 2606 as well as some that do. As the
author of both RFC 2606 and RFC 4343, I believe the domain names
reserved in RFC 2606
Yes, this seems like a good idea and I don't see why anyone would have
to do any work other than the RFC Editor. Are the tools we use really so
brittle that adding a line with ISSN - or urn:ISSN:-
or whatever somewhere in the upper left corner of the first page of an
RFC will break
Hi,
The final version of the slides for the presentations earlier today at
the KMART BOF have all been uploaded to the Meeting Materials Page:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/71/materials.html
Thanks,
Donald
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Hi Sam,
It appears that, somehow, I overlooked message [2] below when I was
editing the document. Thanks for catching that. I'd be happy to make the
two changes agreed to: changing who to whose in one case (an error a
couple of other people have noticed) and changing IETF Consensus to
IETF
Hi,
Thanks for your comment on 2929bis. See response below at @@@
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:08 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis (Domain Name
...
But the UN is a government--
No it isn't, Martin insisted, It's a talking shop. Started
out as a treaty organization, turned into a bureaucracy, then an escrow
agent for various transnational trade and standards agreements. After
the Singularity, it was taken over by
See
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-dnsext-cookies-02.txt
.
Donald
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Stephen Hanna
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 3:52 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
Why would you believe that a representation in the press on an issue as
complex as this is at all accurate?
That quote is not a correct or complete description of IEEE LoAs. First
off, the IEEE-SA can request all it wants but has no power to require
anything of parties who are not part of the
This seems like the best course of action. Allocate 240/6 for private
use as soon as practical and hold the rest of the E Class for private or
public use as seems best later.
Donald
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Senie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 12:06 PM
The metric system has been legal in the US since 1895 when the US agreed
to adopt it in exchange for France agreeing to Greenwich, England, for
the Prime Meridian.
Donald
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 2:17 PM
To: John C
Lakshminath,
I think you have an excellent list of Randomness Sources, although the
use of 8-digit integers made me go check the reference code in RFC 3797
to be sure it would work with integers that large :-)
Use of stock prices in the past has had problems and potential problems
with rounding,
Am I confused? The allocation required an IETF Consensus. A consensus
was determined and the code point allocated. How can it make any
difference if the consensus determination is later reversed? Why should
it make a difference to that allocation if the reversal occurred before
or after the RFC
Lakshminath,
The WG Chairs and Ads are all human beings, are all skewed to some
extent, and all have some philosophy whether strong or weak. I don't see
how this can be avoided. The effect of this may not be what you expect.
For example, one of these, realizing they have a bias towards X, may try
I just use nroff and have no trouble creating whatever succinct symbolic
references I want.
Donald
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 9:26 PM
To: Sam Hartman; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: In support of symbolic references
...
Ditto whether commas and periods should be moved inside quotes when they
are not actually part of the quoted material. When that quoted material
is code or some critical literal string, this silly rule, which was
actually prompted by typographic considerations of appearance, not only
makes little
Of course the IETF is a non-profit entity. For-profit entities are
entities whose purpose is for the operations of the entity itself to
produce profits which accrue to its owners/proprietors/partners/...
Non-profit entities are entities with any other purposes.
Note that these definitions have
-
From: Ned Freed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 6:08 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: IETF-Discussion
Subject: RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
...
(2) We do not redraw the entire Nomcom pool and _never_ do so after
anyone who has
Title: RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Depends what you mean by "it". The overall process may
have broke in this case but the "it" referred to in the message you were
responding to is the "cryptographic" part of theprocess. The one in RFC
3797 depends on
See below at @@@
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11:45 AM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008; IETF-Discussion
Subject: RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
--On Thursday, 31 August, 2006 17:30 -0400
Brian,
The advice you gave is exactly the opposite of that in RFC 3797, the
latest version of my non-binding guidelines for publicly verifiable
random selection. Note in particular that Section 5.1 of that RFC says
(with the all caps words in the original):
5.1. Uncertainty as to the Pool
another selection.
Seems to me clear that A is superior and C is inferior and if I revise
RFC 3797 I'll put in something about this case.
Donald
-Original Message-
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: IETF
John,
If the selection method is random, it makes no difference whatsoever how
the list of nomcom volunteers is ordered. It only matters that the
numbered list become fixed and be posted before the selection
information is available. Alphabetic or the order they volunteered or
any other order is
There are limits to how much you can get back from hotel room rates,
depending on circumstances. In today's financial climate many
organizations are trying to squeeze pennies out of travel expenses.
There have been a number of articles published recently about
increasingly close automated review
I'd like to second this. The adjacent IETF and IEEE 802 meeting in
Vancouver in November 2005 was quite convenient and cost saving for me.
As long as they are adjacent in time and on the same continent, there
are savings. It is much better if they are in the same city. And, I
suspect, if things
25 matches
Mail list logo
