For what it's worth, I think Russ and Jari did the right thing in
signing the statement the way they did, at the time they did it, with
the prior consultation they did.
I was not consulted. And I'm glad they are capable of acting at this
level without consulting me.
On 10/11/2013 06:02
I'd like to snippet Phil's suggestion to an abbreviated version of one
sentence, becaue I think this is right on.
On 09/19/2013 05:37 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The issue we need to focus on is how to convince our audience that our
specifications have not been compromised
To my mind,
On 09/20/2013 01:38 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
On 20.09.2013 13:20, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
To my mind, the first thing to focus on is making our specs readable, so
that it's possible to understand that they have not been compromised.
Three questions for you Harald:
1) When you say
On 08/15/2013 11:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
Hi Harald,
On 14/08/2013 19:49, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On 08/13/2013 12:14 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
[...]
But, in a personal capacity, not as designated reviewer, I have to
ask *why*
this needs to be a URI. As far as I can tell, it is intended
, I have no idea whether it will be
useful in other contexts or not, and I'm hesitant to put language that
seems to claim that we've evaluated all possible contexts and say that
there aren't other contexts in which it can be useful.
#g
--
On 15/08/2013 11:04, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On 08
On 08/15/2013 04:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/15/13 8:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On 08/15/2013 04:05 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
Harald,
Briefly:
1. Thanks for the reference,
and
2. I misunderstood what you meant by This is a format for a piece of
data. In light of your
On 08/13/2013 12:14 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
From: The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org
To: IETF-Announce ietf-annou...@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: iesg-secret...@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt (URI
Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
On 08/13/2013 09:03 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
At 15:14 12-08-2013, Graham Klyne wrote:
But, in a personal capacity, not as designated reviewer, I have to
ask *why* this needs to be a URI. As far as I can tell, it is
intended for use only in very constrained environments, where there
seems to be
marking, and not the media
stream) as sending English, receiving Spanish?
But this level of detail doesn't really belong on the IETF list - which
list should we use?
-Original Message-
From: mmusic-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf
Of Harald Alvestrand
Sorry for barging in late on this thread, but quick questions:
- what's the right mailing list to post to on this one?
- have everyone read RFC 3282 (the standalone accept-language spec)?
Seems to me the desired semantic is more accept-language than
content-language.
On 03/10/2013 03:38 PM,
I like this.
Nit: There's a missing to in the last line.
On 06/15/2012 11:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
One possible oversight is that this I-D does not describe how the editor
will work on the tao-possible-revision.html file (e.g., will only the
editor have permissions to work on that, might there
On 06/15/2012 08:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Well, I've started working on
On 04/27/2012 04:41 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi Phil
After each meeting, Ray sends out a survey to all participants. The results
from the latest one:
When were you born?
Before 19502.9%
1950 - 1960 16.6%
1961 - 1970 33.7%
1971 - 1980 32.8%
After 198014.0%
The
John,
a worry I have with going out with such a massive demand set for this
IPR code violation is that we'd be encouraging the other IPR behaviour
we've seen: That of saying nothing.
The current Huawei people who caused this disclosure to be filed deserve
our praise for doing the Right
On 11/29/2011 05:47 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
+1
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do something
it is not required that the process actually be in use before the
We're working on an updated IPR statement.
We had it on our list of things that need doing, but until now, it
didn't seem the most urgent thing in the world.
Harald (for once speaking for Google).
On 09/07/11 17:18, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
RFC 3951 is the specification of
On 09/04/11 20:39, Eric Burger wrote:
Why? No one has cared about the annual review from 2026. No one has time to
do the bookkeeping and spend the effort to evaluate stuck documents.
If there is an RFC that is harmful, then one can always ask to have it moved to
Historic.
On Sep 4, 2011,
On 07/20/11 01:24, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
On 20 Jul 2011, at 00:34, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/19/2011 14:01, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Clearly, the view that making something historic when it's in active use is
offensive. No standards body could seek to stand behind their
I support the publication of this document.
In general, the document is clearly written, explains the processes
followed for gen-Art review, and forms a valuable snapshot of the
procedures followed at this time.
It makes it very clear that the document does not, in any way, shape or
form,
On 07/20/11 09:22, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
Except that the other Content-disposition values express the sender's intent,
whereas this one expresses the receiver's [likely] perception.
In this case, we have to invent a cute backronym for it that expresses
the sender's intent what about
On 07/16/11 06:12, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello Harald,
As you could see in one of my previous messages, I did intend to
include some analysis in the draft
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg67491.html).
However, numerous responses which discouraged me from doing this
Content-disposition: noise.
On 07/16/11 09:15, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
Notice Of Intentions in Sending Email?
On Jul 16, 2011, at 1:09 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C
Klensin
Sent:
My apologies for the lateness of this review.
I am not happy with this document.
I was unhappy with the IESG's decision to close the ION experiment,
since I believe the mechanisms that were chosen to replace it failed to
fulfil several of the requirements that were driving forces in the
On 05/09/11 19:53, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug.
IEEE Xplore regularly does deals (read: free) to add publishers to the
digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if you are
On 05/10/11 17:28, John Levine wrote:
In the case of Google Scholar, I found the guidelines to be a bit
intimidating:
http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html
but not something that would be hard for the RFC publisher to set up in
a few hours based on the PDF form of the RFCs
On 05/10/2011 10:08 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 20:22 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
If only there was someone who worked at Google on this list
who could send an internal message to get this rectified
:-)
From what I could tell from
Actually, this discussion has been going on for longer than so-far
referenced docs show.
One of my favourite RFCs on the subject:
RFC 2804 IETF Policy on Wiretapping. IAB, IESG. May 2000.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has been asked to take a
position on the inclusion into
Olaf Kolkman wrote:
During previous technical sessions I mailed an announcement about the technical
plenary and in those announcements I've asked something along the lines of:
If you consider asking a question during the open-microphone session it
would be helpful to send that question to
Aaron Falk wrote:
Jari-
The draft says:
The RFC Editor reviews Independent Submission Stream submissions for
suitability for publication as RFCs. As described in RFC 4846 [I3],
the RFC Editor asks the IESG to review the documents for conflicts
with the IETF standards process or
Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:40:52 +0200
From:Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no
Message-ID: 4a65ef94.2050...@alvestrand.no
| I'm afraid that your perception disagrees with the structure that RFC
| 5378 set up.
I was misunderstanding what's
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 02:56:01PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Rather, what it does is the RfC says the code must include whatever
license the trust document says.
When the code is produced, that link is dereferenced, the license is
determined, and the license is
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 08:57:01AM +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
We have two possibilities:
1 - the update consists of revisions of *every single RFC* that
references the BSD license
2 - some RFCs continue to carry the BSD license, even while the real
current
Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:57:01 +0200
From:Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no
Message-ID: 4a6566bd.1080...@alvestrand.no
| We have two possibilities:
|
| 1 - the update consists of revisions of *every single RFC* that
| references
in
the TLP license provisions
I would have no objection. This preserves the Trust's ability to change
provisions.
Harald Alvestrand
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Julian Reschke wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
...
Hi,
I'm trying to understand whether this change affects me.
So...
1) Many specs I'm editor of contain ABNF. Does it need to be labeled
as code component (I believe not).
In my understanding, all ABNF is code by definition (included
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
...
3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the
purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do
I need to include the BSD
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I remain heartily fed up that the HTML versions of documents that I
know were submitted with XML source are not available, nor is the XML
source.
The TXT versions do not print on my printer and have not printed
reliably on any printer I have ever owned.
just an
Voting has all kinds of issues.
I like the current Nomcom process because it depends on 2 things:
- A pool of qualified volunteers
- Luck in picking a nomcom that behaves sensibly (for whatever that
means to you)
Given that luck is involved, many of the possible attacks that people
could
I support the use of should.
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up on...
Hi,
(IETF list not copied as I'm on leave and minimising email, but
there is nothing confidential about this comment.)
Feedback on nominees should always be
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Harald Alvestrandhar...@alvestrand.no wrote:
Voting has all kinds of issues.
Precisely the type of vague, non reason that I was complaining about.
Consider the last ten years of yelling to be included by reference.
I am sad to hear this. I miss him.
Fred Baker wrote:
Steve Coya, the IETF's Executive Director at CNRI during much of the
1990's and early 2000's, has passed away. His wife, Mary Beth, wanted
folks to know, as the IETF was a big part of his life.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
And as I said before, I would be very interested to learn whether
doing this in june rather than july would have made a different
location in the Netherlands a more viable option.
ICANN's holding its Latin America meeting June 20-25. Guess why they
chose those
Jari Arkko wrote:
Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should
invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even
if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per
message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Chuck Powers wrote:
+1
That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards
development groups) must avoid.
Chuck is not alone in saying that, as you have just seen.
These are the very people who refused to add patent policy to the charter
of the
Simon Josefsson wrote:
I consider the inability to include immutable text in software
released under the GPL a bug in the GPL.
Nobody forces you to use the GPL, so if you perceive a problem I suggest
to use another license for your program. However, the IETF should not
prevent
Simon Josefsson wrote:
This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll
reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discuss...@fsfeurope.org to get
other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative
answer, talk to licens...@gnu.org.
2 - The words of the
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I also was resubscribed. I received the usual totally clarifying
message one has come to expect from Mr Anderson.
None of this suggests to me, however, that we ought to do something.
My understanding (and I'd appreciate being disabused if I'm wrong) is
that Mr Anderson
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone
realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code.
Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code.
Except that it prevents using
Simon Josefsson wrote:
actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2:
4.2. Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions
There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit quoting without
modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions. Such excerpts may
be
Two concerns.
1) As the chair of a WG that many will consider to be a prime example of
OBE, I am a bit worried about the MUST NOT publish statements.
A traditional antidote to long-running WGs has been to kill them and
tell the editors if you really want to finish up, you can always do
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:38 PM +1300 1/15/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IANAL, but it seems to me that we should proceed on the assumption
that this would fall under fair use provisions. Anything else
would seem unreasonable to me.
IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Who owns the oft-repeated
The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT,
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and
OPTIONAL in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
I'm referring to the bits effectively
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org writes:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the
Material comments:
- Section 3: RFC 5378 expected the date on which 5378 was effective to
be set by the Trust (section 2.1), and explicitly did not want to cast
into RFC stone the procedure by which the changeover date was determined.
- I disagree with the decision to allow *all* of a
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia,
Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from
http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html
David Kessens wrote:
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at
this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis
(see
start for a real revolution.
The question is: where is any similar movement to those pushed the web
development in the early nineties?
Best,
Géza
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kessens wrote:
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:51:23PM +0200,
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
(That said, the RFC Editor's work on these will cost the IETF a
known amount of dollars.
Known by who? How an ordinary IETF participant
Stephen Farrell wrote:
So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs,
I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we
need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
the (elegant but not
SM wrote:
At 05:37 20-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
This is a second last call for consideration of the following document
from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime):
- 'Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based Encryption
Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be tampering
with the historical record.
You can, however, file a new statement that updates the old one, as you
have already done by filing #954, listed as an update of #201, and #955,
#956, #957, #958, #959, #960, #961, #962 and
IETF Chair wrote:
From the discussion just prior to the recent appeal by John Klensin, it
was clear that the guidance regarding example domain names in IETF
documents provided in the ID-Checklist needed to be updated. This point
was emphasized further during the discussion of the Klensin
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and non-discriminatory
terms. It seems unfortunate that IETF allows organizations to file such
claims
Julian Reschke wrote:
Well. There's definitively a total disconnect between that IESG
recommendation, and the W3C TAG's point of view (see ongoing
discussion on the TAG mailing list about the xri scheme).
It would be good when both organizations could come up with consistent
answers.
If
it's surprising how much we agree on :-)
Julian Reschke wrote:
Certain usages of HTTP (in particular, the use of HTTP URLs for XML
schemas) have tended to denigrate this implication, and say you
should regard this as an identifier. Still, the usage is prevalent
enough that people have
The IESG (by way of Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The attached describes the manner in which the IESG will be
processing RFC Errata for the IETF Stream. The current tools on the
RFC Editor site support approved and rejected, but they need to
be updated to also permit hold for document
Russ Housley wrote:
Harald:
I'd like to see this discussed on the rfc-interest mail list.
Previously, you suggested that all errata and their disposition be
available for historical review, regardless of the state that the
errata is put into. I think that this is the plan, but these details
Eric Rescorla wrote:
As I have done for previous IETFs I just ran getdrafts
(http://tools.ietf.org/tools/getdrafts/) on the entire agenda
and what follows is the output. As you can see, a pretty substantial
number of WGs are without agendas, about 10% of the drafts listed
are wrong, and about
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's my suggestion:
List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
to indicate
that they are grandfathered non-2606 examples.
So, in text that previously read not-example.com, it might read
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals.
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Thomas,
I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by
subject line rather than by sender.
At the time when these summaries started, it was obvious from some
summaries that some participants seemed to be spending more time typing
answers than
I too like Ted's comments.
If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title
convener might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets
followed up, call it an executive director.
But I can live with the current proposal (although dropping #12 entirely
would make
Ray Pelletier wrote:
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
I think you should ask Jorge whether the disambiguation factor matters -
he's the lawyer,
After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a
separate Trust chair.
The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things,
to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the
labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal
Ray Pelletier wrote:
12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member
leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee.
When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD -
upon their acceptance in writing].
This is already covered in
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti skrev:
Folks,
A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report. Please
direct any comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will make a
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200,
Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have
only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a
particular
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Mark Andrews skrev:
You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in
the DNS.
Microsoft gets this wrong as they don't register the privacy addresses
in the DNS which in turn causes services to be blocked because
Rémi Després wrote:
Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
Mark Andrews skrev:
You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in
the DNS.
Microsoft gets this wrong as they don't register the privacy addresses
in the DNS which in turn causes services to be blocked because
Rémi Després wrote:
My desire to have privacy is, in itself, something I may want to keep
private.
I am not sure I see the practical consequences.
If my source address says I am someone but you will not know who I
am, isn't this sufficient?
You're not thinking this through.
Think of the
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 21 feb 2008, at 16:34, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Think of the case where there are 1000 users on a LAN, and one of them
desires to use the address privacy option for all the normal reasons.
Then think about the policeman / bad guy / secret agent / mafioso
Mark Andrews skrev:
You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in
the DNS.
Microsoft gets this wrong as they don't register the privacy addresses
in the DNS which in turn causes services to be blocked because there
is no address in the DNS.
perhaps the advent of IPv6
Cullen Jennings skrev:
I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for
doing IONs.
The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we
need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I
will provide detailed comments on issues with
Cullen Jennings skrev:
I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for
doing IONs.
The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we
need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I
will provide detailed comments on issues with
Russ Housley skrev:
Scott:
There have been several attempts to generate discussion on prior
versions of this document by its author. Very little resulted. I am
using the Last Call to make sure that discussion happens, and it has
worked. It has generated review, and not just superficial
Henrik Levkowetz skrev:
On 2008-01-21 11:24 Stephane Bortzmeyer said the following:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:01:24AM -0800,
Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 23 lines which said:
Or, you can google IMAP and come up with 3501 straight away...
Bad idea. Not only it makes the
Being the RFC author, I'm naturally very much interested.
still, I'll observe that the procedure that seemed most important to me,
which was getting new versions out whenever they were needed, has been
exercised exactly once: in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/dated/,
the only document
Paul Hoffman skrev:
At 12:50 PM +1300 1/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs
are sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational documents in the sense of
Tom.Petch wrote:
I recall a recent occasion when the IESG withdrew its approval, for
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
a document that both before and after its approval generated a lot of heat,
within and without a WG.
Presumably the expedited process would, or at least could, have seen that
IETF Chair skrev:
Dear IETF Community:
Due to a lot of hard work, the RFC Editor is publishing approved
Internet-Drafts more quickly. Overall this is just what we want to
happen. However, I am concerned that the RFC Editor is might be getting
too quick. Anyone can appeal the approval of a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
ULA,
No apparent consensus to do this. But is it needed to deploy
IPv6? A lot of people say absolutely not.
And if, during the next year or so of larger scale deployment
of IPv6, we discover that ULA-C is needed, then it can be made
available
Brian E Carpenter skrev:
Afaik, non-member postings to the list are automatically held in
moderation to trap spam, and moderators are only human.
And I do think that one reason why letter-writing campaigns against the
IETF have been rare is that it's hard to argue that people who care
Ted Hardie skrev:
I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text (preferably
published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible:
- What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent
policy
- What changes in overall direction they think the
Lawrence Rosen skrev:
Harald,
I am unable to be in Vancouver for the meeting, but I hope that someone else
there will support the re-charter of the IPR WG as I suggested in my earlier
email:
***
I request that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and
procedures,
Chris Elliott wrote:
You mean like:
Cisco is the owner of US published patent applications 20050154872 and
20050154873 and one or more pending unpublished patent applications
relating to the subject matter of Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Session Resumption without Server Side State
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 31 August, 2007 01:00 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald, Ben has pointed out one important use for something like
1345, which involves references to characters in programming
languages and command interfaces. The Unicode names
One part I didn't catch when first replying to this thread was Ben's
focus on input methods.
I'm curious about that - could someone give more details?
In particular:
- Is there any consistency among the input methods in how mnemonics are
framed? That is, how do you tell the IME that you're
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
If the IETF were to consider something like RFC1345 today, there would
be a lot of questions like
- whether a registry would be more appropriate than a static
document, after all it's a set of fields that might be extended,
- how one would determine whether any two
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more address
space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as tainted space and
therefore being less than useful on the public Internet.
Harald
Brian E
1 - 100 of 259 matches
Mail list logo
