I seem to be in the minority, but I object.
This results, if I understand correctly, from the dispute that JCK had
with the IESG a little while ago. Basically, someone on the IESG felt
that rules of this sort should apply, an update to an existing
specification didn't conform, and they obje
On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was
due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really
sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course.
To be honest, I think IPv6 has bee
On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
marratech was aquired by google in 2005 , so i guess its not
available anymore ( was java by the way and a bit slow )
I keep hearing this, and I use it every week. Someday I'll figure out
why people say this.
___
IMHO, defining things to a gnat's eyelash is mostly employment for
lawyer-wannabes, and doesn't necessarily help in reality.
"Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any communications
vehicle that enables participants to meet without having to travel,
and which they all agree to. Coul
On Jul 21, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Anyone promoting a point of view is going to find an example to
support it. What we need, instead, is a sense of "typical", to use
as the base for our consideration. Yes, we also need to consider
outliers, but we need to treat them as suc
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at
using the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at using
the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think -
we have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a number of drafts in ou
ne, 2008 07:59 -0400 Scott Brim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/25/08 5:37 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)"
I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very goo
On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)"
I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very good excuse
not doing X might do. One known very good excuse is Y."
That is more or less my definition of "should". I say something "must
On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
> decided that an informal strawpoll was
On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples
> used to indicate that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
It seems that this gives 2606 more weight than it claims. What it
claims is, quoting its abstract:
So you're saying that the indictment (which as described does not
constitute a conviction and therefore is not case law) is relevant if
someone creates an identity for the purpose of deluding others, uses
it to inflict emotional distress, and the result is the suicide of a
member of the dis
OC IAOC Appointee
> 5. IAD
http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html:
Bob Hinden, appointed by the IAB - bob.hinden at nokia.com
Ole Jacobsen, appointed by the IESG - ole at cisco.com
* Fred Baker, appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees - fred at
cisco.com
* Russ Housley, the IETF Cha
On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging
> it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could
> then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right
> people to populate it (for example). It c
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be
> modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust
> falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself
> ceases to exist).
The concept makes sen
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it
> is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info,
> between nomcom and confirming body.
>
> Step up a level: wonder where this discussion is leading to?
On Mar 17, 2008, at 8:34 AM, SM wrote:
> There is an expectation that the information provided to the
> nominating committee is confidential. The confirming body needs some
> information to determine whether the candidate fits the stated
> requirements.
There is a simple solution to that. The
On Mar 14, 2008, at 8:01 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Challenge for our IT folks: Internationalized Internet Drafts,
> including file names. Doable?
It's doable, no doubt. The next question is whether this is actually
smart.
The Finnish character set is something I can deal with, although my
k
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 13, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has further compounded
> the problem by creating interoperable standards for security, which
> have enabled hosts on the Internet to protect traffic en
yes. those that built the integrated services model felt that it was
appropriate for internet telephony to have a way to test the capacity
available for a real time data stream, and if capacity wasn't
available, to say "no". Those who have worked in ieprep have pointed
out that absent such
Could we come to order, please?
I was commenting that the use of pre-RFC-editor copy editors had been
beneficial, and there was something possibly to be learned. I
suggested one variation - tool, and mentioned as supporting context
that I had used such a tool.
The six hours on the IETF list
On Feb 9, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> My own assessment is that it has improved the documents. The
> proofreaders have
> their own views of what is correct and that sometimes requires
> discussion, but
> mostly I consider their intervention to have a positive impact.
>
> The quest
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I suggest we start thinking about this now rather than at the point
> where the IETF can't pay its bills anymore. Where do we draw the
> line on meeting fee increases? Is there any way to save costs? What
> was the cost structure 10 o
> Is there an unwritten requirement that IETFs are placed to afford
> us sightseeing?
Maybe we should add a pointer to the local "things to see and do in
Ireland" page to the Meetings page.
As an engineer, I would very much encourage people to stay an extra
day and tour NewGrange. Imagine t
On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> However, there are obvious logistical concerns, especially at lunch
> time. Is 90 minutes really enough time to bus into town, eat lunch,
> and get back?
Lunch is always a problem. That's why we have a sandwich stand - to
diminish exactly t
On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> However, we have to keep a sense of proportion. Having been one of
> the pre-transition testers (although not of this particular tool),
> I've seen enough to know that the AMS folk have been investing
> tremendous effort to find and qui
On Jan 18, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A possible approach would be to use the cutoff dates as deadlines
for drafts to be placed on the WG agenda - i.e. allow automated
posting to continue unabated, but only allow "late" drafts to be
discussed in the meeting if so agreed during a
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
For the people who participate in a fair number of working groups
in the IETF, requiring early posting allows for a greater
likelihood that they will be able to at least skim each new draft
sometime before setting up their laptop at the beginn
On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier
and cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web
pages. Fred might note that "cheaper" with his IAOC hat on ;-).
I do indeed. That said, I'm paying for the RFC Edito
On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
RFC 4693, Section 4 says:
This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months,
starting from the date of the first ION published using this
mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a call
for comments from the commun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 20, 2007, at 4:59 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
I think the IETF oldie perspective is ... amazement
Truer words were never spoken, at least from this oldie's
perspective. I found Dave Crocker's comment that the IETF never does
interoperabili
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
It the outage happens at the last plenary session then everyone will
have the whole week before the plenary to set up their laptop to IPv6
the laptop is the trivial part. It is the supporting infrastructure
at the home corporation that is an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
In the same way that there is a difference between a bricklayer and
an architect there is a difference between an engineer and a
network admin.
On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:07 AM, David Kessen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With all due respect, firewall traversal and protocol translation
look like they are going to be interesting/important topics, at least
in the near term. You might consider Alain's slides from v6ops/nanog
in that regard. Closing an application w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 18, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
the need for a UDP scavenger service is strong.
Speaking for myself, I would suggest (a) getting your favorite ISPs
to run a scavenger service (IP layer), and run DCCP over it
(transport la
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:17 AM, Jeyasekar Antony wrote:
hi
I heard that TCP is not suitable for high speed network because of
its instability, lattency.
is it true? is there any research work going on in this context?
It is probably worth lookin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
what leads you to believe that the IETF doesn't do interoperability
events? It has done quite a few, notably in DHCPv6 immediately
following the recent IETF and going back in various working groups as
far as I can remember.
On Dec 16, 2007, at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
you might look at tcpm.
You might find RFC 872 interesting reading:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0872.txt
0872 TCP-on-a-LAN. M.A. Padlipsky. September 1982.
People have been saying that TCP was the wrong answer for something
or another for a long t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Looking at IETF-60 to IETF-70, 8 out of the 10 IETFs were in North
America. I'd be good if we could re-balance this in the future.
The plan we're working against is at http://ietf.org/meetings/0mtg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful for
people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for
Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers
beneath them and their users, for example.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Changing the subject line due to topic drift.
On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
We still seem to be constantly wandering into hotels for the first
time, and somehow it's hard to believe that that doesn't cost the
IETF a premium, i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
the only common factor is Ray and the rest of IETF's administrative
management...
well, it's gotta be the IAOC's fault then. Tell you what, you can cut
my IAOC salary in half as a penalty.
Ot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Fair enough, and I realize that I am not privy to how the
negotiations go and how much of a discount one gets. I don't want
to know about how the contracts negotiation happens but I do of
cou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I asked James this privately, but if we're going to get into an off-
topic discussion of global warming, I'll ask it publicly to whoever
has a good answer.
We all agree that global warming is happening. If you go to the
terminal moraine, the f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mr Chairman, I have a suggestion. I suggest that we have a BOF at the
next IETF on heat transfer issues, and subsequently open a working
group. It can deal with this issue right after it solves the leakage
current problem in fine lithography sil
valid signatures. Traffic
with spoofed source addresses from domains that sign needs no
moderation. The moderation load is the problem we're solving.
On Oct 4, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Simon Leinen wrote:
Fred Baker writes:
On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The probl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
the problem I have with DKIM filtering is that it is only effective
for domains that can reasonably insist that all of the mail
originated by users at that domain go through that domain's
submissi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I will disagree with you there. DKIM allows the concept of a
corporate signature - "I'm Cisco and I know who my employee is" or
"I'm Yahoo and I know who my user is" - but it doesn't require it.
What it does require is that if you are not going
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem is the amount of time it is taking to moderate mail
sent by non subscribers.
yes. For example, every email from @cisco.com is dkim-signed. The
IETF can automagically dump an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:02 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Should also consider if spf or dkim checks could cull the paypal spam.
how many of us are now sending with DKIM or Microsoft's scheme? It
might be worthwhile making ietf.org apply a polic
Paul Vixie has asked me to more widely state a comment made last May
on the v6ops mailer. Please understand that this is not a formal
statement of Cisco's (e.g., this is not a press release signed off by
the Cisco Legal, corporate PR, product line management, or marketing
departments), it i
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:44 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not to mention sites that are more than 30 hops away from each
other. I've seen traceroutes that go up to 27 hops so I imagine
that the hopcount diameter is once again becoming an issue as it
was prior to 1995.
That was in many resp
owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say "route
this, or I'll find someone else who will".
I'm actually not as convinced of this. Yes, they can get routing from
their ISP, and the ISP will be happy to sell it to them. Can they get
it from their ISP's upstream, and from that
Dumb question of the month. With the exception of the last claim
("...can prioritize..."), this could just as easily describe SCTP.
What here is new? And define "prioritize"?
On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
You might be interested in Bryan Ford's SST paper from this year's
S
hmm. I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing.
DNS is a rendezvous protocol. I I want to open a session with ,
I translate 's name to an adddress and open a TCP connection.
Having done so, the application doesn't need either the name or the
address as long as the session is stable.
On Sep 14, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
perhaps, but it won't work reliably as long as there can be more
than one host associated with a DNS name, nor will it work as long
as DNS name-to-address mapping is used to distribute load over a
set of hosts.
well, this presumes that the
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:22 AM, David Conrad wrote:
And I would suggest by ignoring history we are doomed to repeat
it. I am not engaging in "I told you so" because I didn't --
you'll note I used "we". I am merely pointing out that we're
either at or very quickly approaching a crossroads an
On Sep 13, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
This RFC identified a couple of opportunities:
4. Call to Action for the IETF
The more automated one can make the renumbering process, the better
for everyone. Sadly, there are several mechanisms that either have
not been automated o
On Aug 20, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which is what prompted the original point I made in the plenary:
when someone is using the end to end principle to slap down some
engineering proposal they don't like I would at least like them to
appear to have read the paper they a
On Aug 14, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
In any event, exploring one of your examples with the concepts in
the paper in mind (perhaps I am using a verbatim application of the
concepts) that the network may filter some (and that being the
keyword) malware or suspicious traff
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:47 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't think that I am misrepresenting the paper when I summarize
it as saying 'keep the complexity out of the network core'
I'm slogging through some old email, and choose to pick up on this.
Following Noel's rant (which is well writ
I am of the opinion that the amount of work we get done is largely
independent of where we meet. But who attends is very heavily
influenced by where we meet.
On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work
done if we had more meet
On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have
IPv6 at IETF meetings
good luck. Until the ISPs and our corporate networks deploy it, we
can't go there.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ie
On May 11, 2007, at 6:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not going to quibble with the wording of the draft at this
point. I just wonder whether it is appropriate for the RIR mailing
lists to be used as a working group for writing Internet drafts?
I don't see why not, but...
In your emai
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 02:42:19 PM -0700 Andy Bierman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are so many Process Wonks in the IETF who feel it is their
sworn duty to yell "State your name please!"
I guess I am one of those process wonks.
In the PCN meeting last week, I was taking notes, a feed
Thanks, Carsten and others.
The general sense I arrive at is:
- nobody that I recognize has said "it's me, and here's what I'm
doing".
- clearly someone wants to make a business based on my (and
presumably many of our) expertise
- the email says something tantalizing about profit-sharing,
Does anyone know who this is or what it is about?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pingsta Registration <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 24, 2007 8:31:52 AM GMT+01:00
To: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pingsta Invitation
Fred,
As an Internetwork expert, we would like to invite you to join
P
On Mar 7, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I think we should boldly go where no IETF has gone before (but
millions of other people have, safely).
I'll agree if I can change the phrase ever so slightly.
I would like to see the IETF meet where IETF participants live. Over
time, I would e
On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
the taxi's are ... unregulated. I would suggest that IETFers never
take a cab on the street. You may pay 50 Euros to go 1 km. Get the
hotel, store, restaurant, whatever, where you are to order you a
cab, and you won't have problems. This
On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Also this appears to be tied to the US business model where the ISP
supplies you with the box and you don't get to change it (or even
own it).
Do they do that in the US? I'm not aware of it...
___
that's the Westin Bayshore (aka Westin Picadilly), as opposed to the
Westin Grand or the Westin Capital, right?
On Mar 5, 2007, at 2:42 PM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IETF is pleased to announce its meeting locations for IETF's 70
and
73, and they are locations we have been to
On Feb 28, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Is there a document that describes a deployment plan under a two
stack transition?
Well, I can't say they are exacty what you're looking for, but you
might glance at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2767.txt
2767 Dual Stack Hosts usin
On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:02 AM, 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.
...
The only protocol which really cares about the source and
destination IP addresses is IPSEC and we have disc
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:
I assume that you also have no objection on using the DSCP fields for
this purpose.
actually, I do, at least in some ways that they might be used. The AF
service (RFC 2597) is specifically designed to do as you say; EF
isn't. settin
On Feb 20, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
It seems that are assuming the transport needs to happen in the
packet itself. While this is a possible approach, I don't see that
it needs to be the only one. For example, a mechanism where the
mutually trusting network components would h
On Feb 19, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
I'd like to see it explicitly stated that transporting congestion
information in the (metered) IP packets themselves is out of scope.
This should exclude designs such as adding IP options en-route,
defining new extension headers, or modifying
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
My attention has recently been drawn to this set of documents:
- draft-legg-xed-asd
- draft-legg-xed-asd-gserei
- draft-legg-xed-asd-xerei
- draft-legg-xed-rxer
- draft-legg-xed-rxer-ei
It's, as far as I can tell, an attempt at a complete
On Jan 12, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of
DISCUSS and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest
ballot text.
It does. Click "view details", and you get the substance of the
commentary.
_
On Dec 29, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
ideology is a fine reason in my mind to fail to have consensus.
Hmm. I have to think for a moment on the definition of ideology.
I'm thinking first of a particular discussion we have going on in
tsvwg. Some are asserting that where the law of l
On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem here is that the positions that are most likely to be
held hostage by DISCUSS are cases like this one where there is a
clear majority in favor of change but the minority see absolutely
no reason to compromise because the
I agree with your points here, and I think it points up something I
have been feeling about this and not putting words to.
I really don't think the issue is whether it is a web page, an I-D,
an RFC, or something else. The point is that we need a document
process that will allow people to pu
A look on the web came up with:
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iesg-discuss-criteria
They have the same date.
On Dec 26, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But, Brian, the concern for costs ough
This document describes a process for managing a set of documents.
IMHO, it is a bit onerous; I may be ignorant, but I don't know how to
get an account on tools.ietf.org, and I'm not sure that having ssh
access to the machine is necessary. Approaches used by common
blogging and wiki softwar
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
There was very little support outside of those involved in the
ieprep working group for the ieprep work.
I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in
either direction about much of anything.
I guess I'm confused. Generally, w
n Nov 16, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fred Baker writes:
On Nov 16, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
Preemption in MPLS can be soft preemption (setting aside
differences of opinion about how signaling of soft preempt should
be d
On Nov 16, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
Preemption in MPLS can be soft preemption (setting aside
differences of opinion about how signaling of soft preempt should
be done for the moment)...
Even for hard preemption, there is at worst a fall back to IP and
reroute...
Those a
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
2. The notion that solutions such as precedence and preemption are
(a) requirements and (b) applicable to all applications just
doesn't compute for me.
They don't especially compute for me in the sense that the terms are
used in the PST
ORMATIONAL)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr
"Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes", Kwok Ho Chan, 22-Oct-06
and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp
"An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic", Fred Baker, 6-
On Nov 11, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hi, will the *.ppt slides be converted again to *.html ?
yes
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Cisco had a case in which a traveller had their laptop detained and
its disk copied by border authorities in Ben Gurion Airport. There
was some embarrassment related to customer-confidential files, which
some at Cisco believe may have been the objective of the border service.
That said, I h
On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Dolly, Martin C, NPE wrote:
Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players
(vendors, service providers, contractors, and most importantly
CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work.
yes, and for stuff that is limited to telephony ser
ng it upon itself to enable the
work to progress in a timely fashion rather than having an infinite
series of hurdles and road-blocks thrown in the way. Can you help us
with that?
On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Fred" == Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wri
is not a good example of "rough consensus and running code". We need
a means by which we can do something about these problems that
includes the right community of experts and doesn't involve waiting
to see who gets exhausted last.
On Nov 5, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Pete Resnick wr
On Nov 8, 2006, at 11:18 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
I'm curious: Why are we still seeing new Internet-Draft
annnouncements (posted on the "i-d-announce@ietf.org" mailing list)
this week? I thought that there were supposed to be no new
Internet-Draft announcements from 1 week prior to each
ing been a liaison to
the nomcom in the past, and having chaired a nomcom, I think I am in
a position to say that the implications of his statement are simply
unworkable.
On Nov 6, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Sam Weiler wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Fred Baker wrote:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, L
On Nov 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Frankly the feedback does not need to seen by anyone other than the
voting members IMO. What do others think?
So your point is that the chair of the nominating committee should
not know who the candidates are?
You might consider the t
I have to say that my discussions with US DoD and DHS/NCS, and with
their counterparts in other countries, doesn't suggest that the set
of technical mechanisms is all specified. If we're looking only at
voice, it is maybe so, but they're not looking only at voice.
Questions abound around th
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/11/03/airforce.cyberspace.reut/index.html___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
if routing protocols aren't scary enough for you...
http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/fortune/scary_tech/index.html
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Oct 19, 2006, at 2:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
I believe that potential candidates who (i) clearly understand what
is involved in the relevant role but (ii) who have plausible ideas
about how the tasks could be rearranged so as to reduce the
workload should be taken very seriously rather
201 - 300 of 487 matches
Mail list logo
