[A quick trial of the random RFC tool.]
An interesting historical snapshot of the early days of hypertext
systems before WWW/HTML/HTTP had come to dominate everything and how
they might be relevant to academic users. It even predates Internet
Explorer!
Mainly interesting for its lack of
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 00:11 -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
what's different in Berlin from Paris and Prague and Maastricht.
The Germans have more 'zealous' tax collectors? :-)
Noel
It appears that the goalposts have been moved - the basic change
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 12:44 +0100, Arturo Servin (probably did not
intend to) wrote:
What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?
I attend all meetings psychically so spriritual!
Sorry.. couldn't resist.
E.
Hi, Ray.
I also think it's good. On the same theme as Brian, the page is linked
to from the 'IASA' link on the main IETF page. To make it clear what is
going on, it would be good to put the title:
IETF Administrative Support Activity
at the top of the page.
A couple of other nits:
It might
On 10/06/13 21:37, Pete Resnick wrote:
Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the
IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the
entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request:
On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I
in the client while the client waits for
response to PLAY/PAUSE respectively. I think a little bit more
explanation about the dual nature of the columns would solve the
problem.
Appendix C: Pending.
Regards,
Elwyn
On 2013-06-06 02:11, Elwyn Davies wrote:
I am an additional Gen-ART reviewer
On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 16:05 +0200, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
Appendix F: I missed that the text/parameter format appeared in the
examples for GET_PARAMETER and SET_PARAMETER. It isn't stated in the
definitions of these methods what encodings are acceptable for the
message bodies that may
: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 5 June 2013
IETF LC End Date: 5 JUne 2013
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
Almost ready. Generally this is an excellent and well written document,
particularly given its size. There are a few minor issues to sort out
mainly at the nit level and some consistency
On 31/05/13 20:18, Scott Brim wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2013 8:12 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of related
meeting rooms.
is dirigible a new term of endearment for an AD?
Obviously the ADs
Similarly, AFAICS the 'IESG time' includes IETF last call and the
inevitable delay caused by the quantized nature of IESG teleconferenes.
On the average, this will be somewhere around 28-30 days (2 or 4 weeks
in Last call according to document type plus an average of 1 week until
the earliest
Both links work just fine from a selection of browsers/os/machines other
than Msoft. (Firefox, Evolution, Chrome) It also works on an old
version of IE8 but reports errors.
Presumably turning off some strict error checking in IE allows it to
display.
Running the page through the W3C HTML
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:27 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 05/03/2013 01:59 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
If you look at the delays documents encounter (both in WG and in IESG
review), the killer is long times between document revisions. Focus on
understanding the *why* behind that and what
On 01/05/13 21:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 02/05/2013 05:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
The blog nicely classes the problem as being too heavy-weight during
final stages. The quick discussion thread seems focused on adding a
moment at which the draft specification is considered 'baked'.
I think
On 01/05/13 21:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 02/05/2013 05:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
The blog nicely classes the problem as being too heavy-weight during
final stages. The quick discussion thread seems focused on adding a
moment at which the draft specification is considered 'baked'.
I think
On 15/04/13 15:45, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think it's
mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they notice that
looks like a problem.
There's an important class
Right.. they are mind expanding drugs. Essential for keeping us sane.
/Elwyn
Sent from my ASUS Pad
Stewart Bryant (stbryant) stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
If the date is
special then thoes RFCs
On Sun, 2013-03-24 at 22:23 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I think I at least partly disagree. The acknowledgements section of
RFCs was not, and to the best of my knowledge is not, concerned with
capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from. It
ought to be concerned
Hi, Russ.
Two points:
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 22:30 -0500, David Farmer wrote:
snip
Rereading things again, I have another suggestion;
4) Split the Goals of the Internet registry system out of the
Introduction. The Intro starts out talking about the document, its
goals, and what is in
Submission allowed; publication postponed?
/Elwyn
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:34 +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Oh, and one more data point:
The Internet-Draft archive also functions as a timestamped signed public
archival record of our inventions.
(Which are often trivial, but triviality
Hi.
Thanks to Dale for the new search plugins - useful.
I made these other ones that get RFCs and use the tools.ietf.org HTML
page to find sets of drafts from a few words. They were originally
published on the tools discuss list about 19 months ago.
Download the attachments into the
+1 to Mary's comments.. few words in line..
Elwyn Davies
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 09:11 -0600, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com
wrote:
There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it,
obviously.
What I find
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 22 Jan 2013
IETF LC End Date:25 Jan 2013
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: In my opinion, this draft has serious issues as described
below.
Major issues:
General 1: Title vs Abstract vs Section 1 vs actual content:
Here in the UK a well-known brand
Hi.
On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 11:02 +, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/12/2012 06:01, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
One of the advantages of a standards organization such as the IETF is
cross-concern review. For the IETF, one very strong cross-concern is
security. Another one (also for my
On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 14:28 +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 12/03/2012 02:25 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Running code, when it's an organic part of the document development,
is undoubtedly a good thing -- it doesn't make everything right, but,
yes, it does do *some* spec validation and
Barry responded...
On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 09:50 -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:
Elwyn says...
However, I don't think that a short last call cycle need necessarily
compromise cross-area review. There has always been the possibility for
authors or wg chairs to request a early gen-art review with
.
Regards,
Elwyn
PS
I still prefer octets.
/E
Thanks again,
Jean-Marc
On 12-05-16 05:26 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Hi, Jean-Marc.
... and thanks for the super-quick response! You have been quite busy.
I have had a look through the new draft and I think the additions help
(agreed pieces elided):
Regards,
Elwyn Davies
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:33 -0400, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Hi Elwyn,
Thanks for the very thorough review. We've addressed your issues and
submitted draft version -13
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 17:08 -0600, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you kindly for the detailed review. More inline ...
On May 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Summary:
Before offering some views on the document, let me say that this piece
of work seems to be a tour de force
: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 14 May 2012 (completed)
IETF LC End Date: 10 May 2012
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
Before offering some views on the document, let me say that this piece
of work seems to be a tour de force on behalf of its developers. It is
certainly one
Hi.
I don't know who was responsible for the Watersprings archive, but I
think we should send whoever it was a vote of thanks for providing this
(free) resource during all the years that the IETF was not able or
willing to provide it.
So THANK YOU! It was extremely useful.
But I am now
On 10/10/2011 20:25, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Very nice, thanks!!
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Doug Bartondo...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 10/10/2011 07:17, Elwyn Davies wrote:
But I am now quite happy with the IETF draft archive and I have a couple
of customized Firefox search entries
Thanks Miguel.
Regards,
Elwyn
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 15:40 +0200, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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
Time for the facial hair standard and ensuring that there is a proper
three stage progression from provisional salt and pepper to full blown
white out.
/Elwyn
Eric Burger wrote:
You all are just bragging you still have hair :-(
On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 10 June 2011
IETF LC End Date: 10 June 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
In my opinion, there are a number of areas that need significant work
and at least one open issue (the stability question from s3.3.1) that
needs to be addressed before
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 22 April 2011
IETF LC End Date: 9 May 2011
IESG Telechat date: 12 May 2011
Summary:
Almost ready for the IESG. This is my second review of the document.
I suggested in the previous review that it might make life easier, particularly
if an appeal was ever
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 11 January 2010
IETF LC End Date: 11 January 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This document is not quite ready for the IESG. The appeals process (if
there is to be one) needs to clarified as it currently points indirectly
to a hole in RFC 5226
On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 12:52 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Dec 30, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Robin Uyeshiro wrote:
The GPS in the rental car (rented in Munich) did not have the street
information for Prague.
It's not unusual, or at least
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 18:19 -0800, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
On 23 Nov 2010, at 7:15 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Summary:
This document has at least one open issue that I believe needs
fixing, either by altering the scope of the applicability of the
solution or fixing the requirements
-send-name-type-registry-03.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 14 May 2010
IETF LC End Date: 14 May 2010
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
Probably not ready. There seems to be a conflict or confusion between the
prescriptive specification of a single algorithm for how the Subject Key
: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2bis-10.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 4 May 2010
IETF LC End Date: 18 March 2010
IESG Telechat date: 6 May 2010
Summary:
When I reviewed this document at IETF Last call, I discovered that compared to
previous documents, it contains no mention of mandatory
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 2:37 PM + 3/19/10, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Not ready. The document contains a lot of minor niggles and nits plus a
major item that I am not sure the IETF should support: this is the removal
of all mention of mandatory to implement security suites from
-ipsecme-ikev2bis-08.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 18 March 2010
IETF LC End Date: 18 March 2010
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
Not ready. The document contains a lot of minor niggles and nits plus a major
item that I am not sure the IETF should support: this is the removal of all
-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-01.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 5 February 2010
IETF LC End Date: 17 February 2010
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: Almost ready. I note that (AFAICS) the existing DHCPv4
standards do not specify the behaviour of clients and servers receiving
message
Carsten Bormann wrote:
What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard
issue word processor.
Why? I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor,
this might
be feasible, but I think by standard issue you mean commercially
available.
I agree with this point. It would also be good to have 'parent' links
on these sub-pages.
I note that the same problem occurs if you select the 'Brief' option on
the menu.
[Q: will the 'customize view' be something one can select on startup
(e.g. by a ?string in the URL)? - I am not sure how
-monami6-multiplecoa-10.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 24 November 2008
IETF LC End Date: 17 November 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
This document is almost ready for the IESG. It has a number of minor
issues plus a fair number of editorial nits.
I am sending the editirial
-monami6-multiplecoa-10.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 24 November 2008
IETF LC End Date: 17 November 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
This document is almost ready for the IESG. It has a number of minor
issues plus a fair number of editorial nits.
I am sending the editirial
these in the -06 draft is below.
Regards,
Mark
On 7/18/08 8:57 AM, Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
-sip-media-security-requirements-07.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 10 October 2008
IETF LC End Date: 13 October 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
This document is almost ready for the IESG. I have a couple of comments
and queries about the reasoning in a few of the requirements
-forces-model-14.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 5 Setember 2008
IETF LC End Date: 8 September 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: Nearly ready for IESG. Generally this is a very well
constructed and written document dealing with a very complex problem.
There are quite a number
-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-05.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 18 July 2008
IETF LC End Date: 29 July 2008
IESG Telechat date: n/a
Summary:
Nearly ready for IESG. A few minor issues mainly with failure to
specify encodings and a couple of corner cases. A few editorial nits
noted
-rmt-bb-norm-revised-04.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 15 April 2008
IETF LC End Date: 17 April 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
A well-written document covering some pretty complex ideas. Technically
ready for the IESG but a little up front explanation for the naive
reader
-rserpool-policies-08.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 11 April 2008
IETF LC End Date: 14 April 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
Sorry, guys! This document is not in good shape. I know it is, in a
sense, the bottom of the tree and somebody reading it would probably be
expected
Sri Gundavelli wrote:
Hi Elwyn,
Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reviewing the updated
draft. We will address the two remaining issues. Please
see inline.
No problem.. I am stuck in a hotel in Toronto, nit getting to IETF. :-(((
Snipped the first issue as that should be fine.
-smime-multisig-04.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 7 March 2008
IETF LC End Date: 7 March 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
Mostly fine except for a piece of unclear specification noted below and
a few editorial nits.
Caveat: I am not a security expert and this should not be taken
-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-05
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 7 March 2008
IETF LC End Date: 20 March 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
The document is almost ready for the IESG. There are a couple of minor
issues that ought to be resolved as detailed below (especially
: draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 29 Feb 2008
IESG Telechat date: 06 March 2008
Summary:
Version 11 resolves almost all of the issues and nits that I raised in the last
call review of version 10. There is one editorial matter to complete the 'ease
-netlmm-proxymip6-10.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 18 Feb 2008
IETF LC End Date: 20 Feb 2008
IESG Telechat date: 21 Feb 2008
Summary:
This document is well written and is in fairly good shape for submission
to the IESG.
There are a number of minor issues which ought to be fixed. I think
The information is available on the RFC Editor's web site at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/
The RFC Database in various forms such as
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html tells you the status of each
RFC and the RFCs that are associated with it by
obsoletes/obsoleted/updated relationships
scheduled for next weeks telechat, you
should liaise with your AD before making any changes.
Document: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 18 January 2008
IETF LC End Date: 16 January 2008
IESG Telechat date: 24 January 2008
Summary:
This document is not ready
-multidomain-pki-11.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 28 December 2007
IETF LC End Date: 1 January 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
In general this is a well written and, as far as I can see, comprehensive
document. I have one major problem with it: it far exceeds the scope
I also think that we must think positive about this.
We do need to try things out. I think we started our very first
experiments with Wireless LAN at IETF 46 in Washington (I am just trying
to find a museum to take the plug-in card Nortel sold(?) me that was
never any use afterwards (the old
-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 21/9/07
IETF LC End Date: 20/9/07
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: This document is almost ready for the IESG. I have a couple of
essentially editorial comments below.
Comments:
s3: IPv6 nodes **MUST NOT process** RH0
-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-05.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 16 Aug 2007
IETF LC End Date: 16 Aug 2007
IESG Telechat date: (if known) 23 Aug 2007
Summary:
I think this document needs significant work on the core description of the
algorithm. I found s4 to be difficult to read
-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-06
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 20 July 2007
IETF LC End Date: 18 July 2007
IESG Telechat date: (if known)-
Summary:
Generally in good shape except that the use of RFC 2119 language is generally
inappropriate. In many cases the uses of MUST represent
Christian Huitema wrote:
From: Noel Chiappa, Monday, July 02, 2007 6:08 AM
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
if NAT-PT is to be made historic due to the claims presented in
the
draft, all of the NAT related documents have to be made historic
...
arrival of these comments.
Document: draft-ietf-sip-e2m-sec-05.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 18 May 2005
IETF LC End Date: 14 May 2005
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
I think this document needs a fair bit of work before it is ready to go to the
IESG.
The request to publish
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-04-06 08:12, Jari Arkko wrote:
Simon,
Maybe we can lobby for it to become the default.
+1
(I think it would be the right default, even if I agree with John
Klensin's concern.)
Putting symrefs into all the xml2rfc templates would not be a
bad idea.
The
Tim Chown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:23:21PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
I visited Prague about two years ago and had the same experience as Ed. I
traveled via the Metro and on foot, visited all the tourist traps; had no
problems and never felt unsafe.
I second that. The
Just to clarify the current situation...
The statement below says that the recommendation is for RFC 2766 to be
reclassified to experimental.. As is implied by the title of the draft,
it actually recommends reclassification to Historic.
This error results form a piece of history ;-) - The
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a bad thing so lets get rid of
NAT rather than trying to make NAT work.
NAT-PT is not NAT. It does a whole lot more, but it *cannot* do what it
claims to do completely, because the semantics on the two sides
-crisp-iris-dchk-06.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 10 February 2007
IETF LC End Date: 21 February 2007
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary:
The document itself maybe nearly ready for IESG apart from a few
editorial nits (see below). However there are a couple of issues with
associated
-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 30/01/2007
IETF LC End Date: 21/01/2007
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: Apologies for the late review - I missed the aassignment somehow.
This document is almost ready for the IESG. There are a couple of
issues which need
Search for Praha postcode 18600 or the Florenc metro station which is
just nearby (slightly south of hotel).
Link to maps centred on hotel:
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=50.0922lon=14.439scale=5000icon=x
(links to some hotels relatively nearby)
www.mappy.com finds about 30 hotels
A couple of nits:
s3: It might be helpful to make the first three paras into a bulleted
list and add an introductory sentence like:
'There are various ways in which an extension to an IETF can be
introduced into the IETF:'
s3, para 3: If my understanding is correct, a document from the
Hi.
Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I don't recall seeing messages about
this on either the ipv6 or v6ops mailing list. I guess you may have
asked around but I'm sure somebody in the wg's could have helped if a
public request was made (especially the ndproxy authors).
Be that as it may,
Minor clarification in case your ethics are troubling you...
Elwyn Davies wrote:
Airport shuttles:
Unfortunately the Delta doesn't seem to qualify for a free shuttle. The
nearest is probably the Queen Elizabeth (900 boulevard Rene-levesque
Ouest) which is about 0.25 mile from the Delta
Airport shuttles:
Unfortunately the Delta doesn't seem to qualify for a free shuttle. The
nearest is probably the Queen Elizabeth (900 boulevard Rene-levesque
Ouest) which is about 0.25 mile from the Delta..
Alternatives include riding to the central bus station and taking the
metro (Orange
Unfortunately the Delta doesn't seem to qualify for a free shuttle. The
nearest is probably the Queen Elizabeth (900 boulevard Rene-levesque
Ouest) which is about 0.25 mile from the Delta..
Alternatives include riding to the central bus station and taking the
metro (Orange Line, direction
Kevin Loch wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
secIETF == IETF Secretariat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
secIETF *Only HTTP, SMTP, FTP, and DNS traffic are permitted
through an IPv6 secIETF Native firewall (pings,
traceroutes etc. are dropped)
Please make sure that ICMP messages
.
==
Thoughts?
Regards,
Elwyn
Sam Hartman wrote:
Elwyn == Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Elwyn I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for
Elwyn this specification (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Elwyn http://www.alvestrand.no
Hi.
Sam Hartman wrote:
I am happy to make a change similar to the one you propose in section
1.
I'm happy to split the parts of section 4 dealing with what the IESG
might do into their own section as an example.
That's fine by me.. it should make a self-consistent document.
I do not want
Bill Strahm wrote:
Robert Elz wrote:
I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone,
can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in
the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the
problem is easy, what possible justification
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Document: draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt
Intended Status: Experimental (RFC3933 Process Experiment)
Shepherding
Hi.
Tom.Petch wrote:
The phrase 'monotonic increasing' seems to be a Humpty-Dumpty one, used with a
different sense within RFC to that which I see defined elsewhere; and this
could lead to a reduction in security.
Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it
defined so that
-
From: "Elwyn Davies" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Tom.Petch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "ietf" ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
Hi.
Tom.Petch wrote:
The phrase 'monotonic increasing' seems t
Finding out what BOFs are being plotted is not very easy AFAIK. In the
case below there doesn't appear to have been any widespread public
announcement of the start of the mailing list and I suspect that is the
case for many others.
Obviously an announcement of intent to the IETF list or the
Hi.
One additional piece of information relating to drafts that ism't
included in the drafts database is the location of the issue tracker (if
any). They aren't all in one place at the moment which makes life more
difficult than necessary for the casual inspector... for example...
- I was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the
humanity of capitol punishment?
As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of the US
legal system. Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor
to sit through a set
=
regards,
Elwyn Davies
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
While we are on the subject, in the archives of the IETF there are
proceedings of one Internet Architecture Task Force meeting, in May,
1986.
Can anyone fill me in on this entity and what happened to it ?
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
Seconded.
I *have* used it for a production run and whilst it is not perfect it
makes document creation and editing significantly easier than typing
'raw' xml even into a syntax-aware text editor.
It is also very helpful for proof reading and commenting (spell checker
provided).
And the
Seconded.
I *have* used it for a production run and whilst it is not perfect it
makes document creation and editing significantly easier than typing
'raw' xml even into a syntax-aware text editor.
It is also very helpful for proof reading and commenting (spell checker
provided).
And the
Joe Touch wrote:
Elwyn Davies wrote:
I used to use the Word template but the freedom from hassle of
generating the final documents
I'm not sure what freedom this means; XML still needs to run through a
script, just as Word does.
you can't do it from inside Word and in my
would ask.
Appendix A: I was somewhat surprised that this section doesn't
explicitly mention any software used as part of the operations and
process. Maybe this is covered by some other part of the IASA agreements?
Regards,
Elwyn Davies
___
Ietf
Roland
Looking at the RFC Editor queue, it looks as if this is the only
document in the complex web of interdependencies between rfc2401bis and
ikev2 and their related documents that is still in the EDIT state. All
the others appear to be in REF state waiting for it to finish editing.
Why
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
How about adding that the mean outdoor temperature at the time of the
year the meeting is being held should be above 0 degrees Centigrade?
Why?
There is some logic in this.. Participants need to be able to
Jari Arkko wrote:
Elwyn Davies wrote:
There is some logic in this.. Participants need to be able to get
from airport to hotel to venue on foot/public transport without
needing to bring excessive personal protection gear that they might
not otherwise own, or experiencing heat stroke
Johan: I imagine you have seen this paper on the subject of a p2p DNS
substitute based on CHORD, but it is interesting reading for others.
http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/178.pdf
Regards,
Elwyn Davies
Johan Henriksson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200,
Johan
Hi.
I did a quick read of this document and have a couple of general
comments (plus I spotted a very few trival nits).
It seems to be a very useful survey of what has been done in the area of
Wireless LAN and the interactions of link indications for hosts
connected directly to such links.
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
