On 15 Mar 2012, at 11:47 , Shane Kerr wrote:
Yet we know based on country attendance statistics that people attend
meetings in their region much more than where they have to travel a
great distance. So even if cost is not a huge factor, SOMETHING is.
Not everyone goes to every meeting.
[cc to ietf@ietf]
On 14 Mar 2012, at 14:58 , Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
One idea I've toyed with idly for years is halfway in between: keep the
physical meetings, but break them up into multiple locations. We could have
physical meetings in Europe, North America, and Asia, with strong
On 27 Sep 2011, at 5:45 , Christian Huitema wrote:
if an address space is somehow set aside, we have no mechanism to enforce
that only ISP use it. So we have to assume it will be used by whoever feels
like it.
How is that different from the current situation? Is there a reason why
On 23 Sep 2011, at 7:21 , Benson Schliesser wrote:
The STS may have similar
semantics as RFC1918 space, in that it's non-routable on the Internet etc.
But it is not meant to be used in the same scope.
The draft isn't sufficiently clear on this to my liking.
I think it should be explicitly
On 26 Sep 2011, at 18:41 , Keith Moore wrote:
The problem isn't in the difficulty of finding these changes and fixing them,
for currently maintained code. The problem is in the zillions of systems in
the field that have assumptions about 240/4 wired into them, most of which
either have no
On 30 aug 2011, at 9:22, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
That is a 4.5 year difference in when the exact date is announced. This
increase the risk that there is a clash with another meeting and people
cannot plan much in advance.
Come on, the idea that people need to know the date of a meeting more
On 27 Aug 2011, at 17:43 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I think that the meeting selection process is inherently iterative. Pseudo
code might be something like
- Find a list of all venues we can in the target area for the target week.
The number of these is rarely if ever more than 10.
So the
On 26 Aug 2011, at 16:24 , Tim Bray wrote:
I'm increasingly coming to think that *everything* should be done with
TLS unless you can prove it's harmful. Call me paranoid, but given
the general state of the world, secure-by-default seems like the way
to go. -Tim
That would be nice in a
On 27 Aug 2011, at 19:42 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
In the mean time, I would like TLS exterminated from the IETF website - any
reason will do - since the cost to me far outweighs the benefit. So who
decided to put it in, and on what grounds?
Good question. For me it also causes more trouble
On 29 Aug 2011, at 17:01 , Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
If we want more flexibility in order to find better hotel deals, then we have
to do something like: dates are fixed approximately 1.5 years out, and we do
not mind having meetings back-to-back with other organizations on the clash
list. That
On 29 Aug 2011, at 17:32 , Andrew Allen wrote:
There likely are no such dates as there are telecommunications standards
meetings of one kind or another virtually every week of the year (except
Christmas and (western) new year).
Then go from no clash to minimal clash. If it turns out that
On 9 jul 2011, at 15:51, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
You're invited to file a report with http://bugreport.apple.com about
this. Be sure to explain why fixing the broken path MTU discovery in the
network is not an option and requiring the AirPort user to know enough
about IPv6 router
On 10 jul 2011, at 17:20, Masataka Ohta wrote:
I was wondering what kind of unique perspective you would have here, and I
wasn't disappointed:
It means that rational operators MUST filter some ICMP
and, not surprisingly, some operators will block all
ICMP or all packet too big ICMPs
That is
-to-IPv4 translation
Author(s) : Iljitsch van Beijnum
Filename: draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-12.txt
Pages : 17
Date: 2011-07-08
I made a cosmetic change to the short title used in the page headers and, after
this week's discussion with Rockson
On 6 jul 2011, at 17:38, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Has anyone found a particularly good solution to reading drafts on an ipad?
I saw xml2rfc now has the option to convert to epub, which would make it easy
to read drafts on the iPad and other mobile devices, but unfortunately when I
tried to
[Please note that this message is going to many mailing lists, please trim as
appropriate when responding.]
I submitted a new version of the draft which addresses most, if not all
comments.
The most notable change, which I would like to ask previous reviewers to look
at again, is the handling
Thanks everyone for the comments. I'll look into the other technical comments
later this week, but there's one I can respond to right now:
On 4 jun 2011, at 0:16, Fernando Gont wrote:
* Section 1, page 3:
In 5 cases, issuing the EPSV
command to the server led to a significant delay, in
On 12 apr 2011, at 1:39, Doug Barton wrote:
http://bens.me.uk/2011/adventures-in-ipv6
What a bunch of whining.
When I first started doing IPv4 it was much harder than this.
Of course, I think the conclusion is basically wrong, *not* doing
IPv6 is much worse than breaking the finger-pointing
On 5 mrt 2011, at 5:06, Dean Willis wrote:
1) Privacy and Integrity: We believe that intermediaries should be neither
able to understand nor alter the transmitted material without the explicit
consent and awareness of the users.
2) Privacy and Obscurity: We believe that observation of a
On 14 jan 2011, at 23:06, Martin Rex wrote:
Frankly, I'm actually more concerned about code assignments for
severely IPR-impaired algorithms (e.g. Elliptic Curve related)
than about GOST. (Admittedly, the GOST 34.10-2001 signature
algorithm appears to use Elliptic curve math, and it's
On 8 sep 2010, at 3:13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
or people who only attend meetings in their home region,
Am I imagining things or are more and more American attendees foregoing
meetings outside North America?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 8 sep 2010, at 17:03, Eric Burger wrote:
in today's environment of thousands of Internet-connected publication venues,
why would we possibly ask ourselves to shoot ourselves in the foot by
continuing the practice of Informational RFC publication?
Link rot.
On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:48 PM,
On 2 sep 2010, at 10:04, t.petch wrote:
So it is legal to rewrite the DF bit from 1 to 0. I also know that this
happens in the wild because I used to do this at one time.
Curious; RFC2402 says
Flags -- This field is excluded since an intermediate router might
set the DF
On 2 sep 2010, at 7:40, Christer Holmberg wrote:
In my opinion, the discussion whether we should change the meeting calendar
(not having meetings during summer vacation months etc) was much more
interesting and useful.
To revisit that: if we move up all the meetings by one month, we gain a
On 31 aug 2010, at 22:04, John Kristoff wrote:
I'm trying to locate an RFC that spells out the behavioral
requirements, expectations or guidelines for NAT handling of the IP ID
field, particularly for UDP messages.
If this is not written down anywhere, do NATs generally rewrite the ID
field
On 31 aug 2010, at 1:13, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
My vote is strongly in favor of 1:1:1.
1. First, the location _is_ a significant barrier to entry for newcomers
and other contributors. Optimizing only for the current status quo does
create a strong perpetual cycle of self reinforcing structure
On 28 aug 2010, at 3:04, James M. Polk wrote:
I'm going to pile on what Michael and Mary have already said, by saying the
comparable list of cities (Minneapolis, Orlando, Vancouver, Barcelona,
Prague) isn't even remotely close to including Maastricht. Each of the above
cities are
On 30 aug 2010, at 19:57, Randall Gellens wrote:
8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa?
9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America?
Like the question on an earlier survey about Quebec City, I think it requires
more information and more individual
On 30 aug 2010, at 20:25, Randall Gellens wrote:
In both directions between BRU and Maastricht I had to change trains multiple
times, and several of the stations required me to carry my luggage up and
down non-trivial staircases. I wondered at the time how someone in a
wheelchair or who
On 30 aug 2010, at 21:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in
such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that
regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by
putting fairly
On 30 aug 2010, at 23:47, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on.
We can even rotate islands if people get bored.
No, we'd still have to rotate oceans. Iceland is nice and close to both NA and
EU (farther north generally helps),
Why?
inline: Screen shot 2010-07-25 at 14.14.45.png___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 25 jul 2010, at 14:34, Thomson, Martin wrote:
This is the venue map page: http://tools.ietf.org/rooms ?
The reason is so that it can display where you are on the map.
Right. I had opened this page in a background tab so I didn't make the
connection.
Safari on the Mac doesn't seem to be
On 25 jul 2010, at 15:29, Scott Brim wrote:
Are we resurrecting that marvelous app that shows where you are based on wifi?
Yes. The Google streetview + wifi snooping truck should make its round through
the MECC shortly, please don't stand in its way.
On 21 jul 2010, at 5:27, Mark Andrews wrote:
The only keys that have to be widely distributed are those for the
root zone and that's a similar problem to distributing the list of
root nameservers and their addresses. Millions of recursives server
operators have managed that.
Would be great
On 30 jun 2010, at 23:55, IETF Chair wrote:
To gain access to the IETF network, you will need to provide a
credential. Your primary credential will be your registration ID. You
can find your registration ID on the registration web page, in the
response email confirmation you received from
On 16 jul 2010, at 14:23, Russ Housley wrote:
I am passing on this announcement, and I want to add my thanks to
everyone in the Internet community that played a role in deploying DNSSEC.
Too bad it doesn't work for me.
Here IANA publishes info that needs conversion steps that I don't have
On 16 jul 2010, at 18:40, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Define works?
Less of this:
validating @0x82e9000: . DNSKEY: please check the 'trusted-keys' for '.' in
named.conf.
If anyone can point me to a key I can paste in my BIND config that will allow
me to actually validate domains that would be
On 16 jul 2010, at 19:56, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
http://fanf.livejournal.com/107310.html
Thanks! That was very useful. I finally got it working.
Yes, me too.
I would also like to check the output for a zone that is verifyable not
correct. Any examples of signed RRs with an incorrect
I should know better than dive back into this discussion...
On 13 jul 2010, at 18:05, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Con: There is no cost to generating the cert, the cert can be
generated after the device ships. Thus there is no degree of
accountability established in the presentation of a
On 13 jul 2010, at 7:19, Hasnaa Moustafa wrote:
I understood that the train runs daily from Brussels to Maastricht.
There are more than 10 connections daily. I can't seem to find the direct
Brussels - Maastricht train right now, though, the best options I see are with
two changes.
When in
On 13 jul 2010, at 9:22, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Right, but Dutch trains are not nearly as nice as German
ICE trains.
There are many different kinds of trains in the Netherlands. Indeed only some
of them equal ICEs. However, by traveling through Eindhoven you're almost
certainly subjecting
On 13 jul 2010, at 11:38, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
That's the same software. If b-rail.be is competent about
updating its route database with other companies' trains, then
the results will be exactly as good as for bahn.de.
In that case, give ns.nl (dutch railways) a try. They seem to
On 13 jul 2010, at 18:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
fun technologies like AJAX but also opens up the possibility for
new attacks (cross-site scripting, cross-site request forgery,
malvertising, clickjacking, and all the rest).
Isn't this W3C stuff?
On 12 jul 2010, at 17:47, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Do you know if there is any sort of shuttle van service from Brussels
Airport to Maastricht? That could be an easier option, given the
luggage. As my company will be paying, I don't mind a higher cost as
long as it's not astronomical, as I
Sorry about my previous message, this was a private message that I accidentally
sent to the list. The one I really had in mind:
On 12 jul 2010, at 19:53, Chris Elliott wrote:
I thought we were talking about how to do this for the meeting in Maastricht
and then in Beijing. I agree that
On 6 jul 2010, at 23:45, joel jaeggli wrote:
What I'm missing is what happens with the information described under
Registering to attend a meeting or social event:, there are no
retention periods mentioned (that I noticed).
the trust's records retention policy already deals with
On 7 jul 2010, at 14:02, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Data retention is addressed explicitly in section 5:
What's missing?
What I said: the stuff that gets asked for during registration and payment.
Apparently I didn't notice the link to the IETF trust. However, I don't see the
point of having a
On 7 jul 2010, at 16:32, John Morris wrote:
And, if you indeed think that something is missing, perhaps you could suggest
some language to address your concern, rather than just dismiss the entire
effort.
I think it's completely legitimate to question whether efforts like this are
worth
On 7 jul 2010, at 17:23, John Morris wrote:
Well, as someone who believes that *all* websites and online-operating
organizations should have a clear and accessible privacy policy, I think it
is beyond embarrassing that the IETF does not have one.
The IETF got along without one for two
On 5 jul 2010, at 18:05, Alissa Cooper wrote:
1) Respond on this list if you support the idea of the IETF having a privacy
policy (a simple +1 will do).
I'm torn between good to have this written down and do we really need to go
out and look for more process work.
2) If you have comments
On 2 jul 2010, at 2:30, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
It has taken ten years for WiFi to get to a state where an adequate
credential mechanism is supported, and it is still clunky.
What are you talking about?? Enterprise type WPA where you authenticate against
a back end server has been around
On 1 jul 2010, at 19:07, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This is useful, but not quite what I was asking. Clearly, the above
means that the logs exist during the meeting, while we are at the host
venue. I think it is safe to say that under some legal regimes, a
government could require the delivery
Some more Amsterdam airport - Maastricht train info:
On 27 jun 2010, at 22:01, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
From there, there's a train to the city of Utrecht every 30 minutes at x.29
and x.59. This is a 33 minute ride. When you arrive in Utrecht, change to the
train to Maastricht, which
This is some information about trains to and from Maastricht and the busses
within the city. Probably more than you ever wanted to know.
If you use an airport other than schiphol (Amsterdam), then see my earlier
message about advance travel info. Schiphol has a big train station right
A paper train ticket is 25 euros; if you want to go to Maastricht Randwyck is
the same but it needs to say Maastricht Randwyck on the ticket.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 25 mei 2010, at 20:17, todd glassey wrote:
The IETF does NOT own the underlying license rights to TCP/IP in ANY WAY.
For the record TCP/IP actually probably still belongs to the US
Government as it was originally produced under a Department of Defense
contract with BBN about 40 years ago
If you go through all of the trouble to say all of this:
On 18 mei 2010, at 21:46, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The IAOC has adopted a Meeting Room Policy regarding the use
of available IETF meeting room space, the approval process, and charges for
the
rooms and services based upon the category
On 17 mei 2010, at 22:05, victor nunes wrote:
For example, if I wanted to write a book about an article or book on some
proprietary protocols, I'd have to ask permission for the patent holders of
their protocols?
You don't need to ask for permission to write a book if the country you're
On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
when customers pay by credit cards.
And that's
On 8 mei 2010, at 1:50, Glen Zorn wrote:
More than once, I _have_ asked the driver specifically if he accepts credit
cards (the advertised policy notwithstanding) only to have him refuse it
upon arrival...
Curious way to engage in commerce. Where was this?
BTW:
I'm typing this from Schiphol
On 6 apr 2010, at 18:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a members of the IETF. No agency of
the US government, or of any other government, is a member of the IETF. No
university, non-profit, PIRG, PAC, or other concerned citizens group, is a
member of the IETF.
On 1 apr 2010, at 2:56, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
In theory it is possible to use a US issued credit card in Europe.
In practice, forget it unless you are willing to face the
embarrassment of 50% of places declining your card.
:-)
What you have to remember is that in many European
On 1 apr 2010, at 01:12, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote:
On the other hand, generic discussions about meeting planning, travel
tips and Ole's Guide to Japanese Gadgets might be more appropriate on
a permanent list, right?
If only the IETF had a list for general discussions...
As for the
On 30 mrt 2010, at 10:15, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote:
http://www.ietf78.nl/.
Ok, one thing: I strongly recommend AGAINST purchasing any _Dutch_ train
tickets before you travel. (This does not apply to international train tickets!)
The Nethelands is currently making a transition from paper
On 30 mrt 2010, at 15:39, Basil Dolmatov wrote:
OV-chipkaart logo is already seen on some ticket machines, so I would be
glad to get an advice where and how these chipkaarts can be bought and
where it can be used except for train tickets purchase.
(Plural of chipkaart is chipkaarten, or use
Note: I unintentionally wrote off some German airports that _may_ be suitable
for travel to Maastricht, such as Cologne/Köln. But be careful with any of the
smaller airports in the region, check ground transportation before you book or
you may be in for nasty surprises.
On 29 mrt 2010, at
Even though many of you are still fighting jet lag, it's never too soon to
start thinking about the next IETF meeting! Below some musings on how to get to
Maastricht from various airports to aid those who want to book their plane and
possibly train tickets.
Lunch:
But before that: Maastricht
the normative
output should be.
On 19 mrt 2010, at 2:04, Tim Bray wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
So far the only thing I hear is assertions offered without any foundation
that the current format is problematic
OK, one more time
On 19 mrt 2010, at 12:02, Dave Cridland wrote:
Why care about a normative output? You change the subject to talk about using
non-normative representations already, why care about a normative output *at
all*?
You have a point. But it's in the subject line...
Let's concentrate on a
On 18 mrt 2010, at 2:43, Richard Barnes wrote:
+1
Making the XML normative would be an abomination.
The XML in itself can't be interpreted by a human to the level needed to create
a compliant implementation, although it deceptively looks like maybe it could.
Of course human readability also
On 18 mrt 2010, at 20:59, Julian Reschke wrote:
The XML in itself can't be interpreted by a human to the level needed to
create a compliant implementation, although it deceptively looks like maybe
it could. Of course human readability also doesn't exist for pretty much
anything other than
On 14 mrt 2010, at 1:09, Phillips, Addison wrote:
There is also a difference between regularized usage and formats derived by
well-meaning people based on their own experience (i.e. a European might very
well think first of ydm, being used to seeing the day preceding the month).
No way.
On 12 mrt 2010, at 6:58, John Levine wrote:
Indeed, I know plenty of people these days who have no idea today how
to produce an ASCII file with only tab, CR, and LF formatting
characters.
Type. Save as text. How hard is that?
I have actually written a few drafts that way. The text part isn't
On 17 mrt 2010, at 17:02, Michael Edward McNeil wrote:
(Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this
harder for Americans.)
Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD
be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others
On 17 mrt 2010, at 14:59, Yao Jiankang wrote:
But if someone can't figure yout 2010-01-02 then maybe they're not our
audience.
there are two kinds of audience: those who understand 2010-01-02 by usual way
and those who understand 2010-01-02 by unusual way.
your logic reasoning seems to
On 13 mrt 2010, at 21:54, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So in the hope of finding consensus here, lets see what people's
position actually is
A) The format issue does not matter
B) The format issue matters a little to me and I prefer the
teleprinter format
C) The format issue matters a lot
On 5 jul 2009, at 15:20, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Jul 3, 2009, at 19:49, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
1. The recent boilerplate/process-change events have resulted in a
situation where the most-recommended tool for preparing IETF
documents
does not work at all in its stable version.
To me,
On 16 sep 2009, at 18:40, IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
Ten years out, who knows? Maybe.
However, even then, that will affect almost exclusively devices with
*public* IP addresses. The gazillions of devices behind NATs may also
need to speak IPv6 when connecting to the outside world, but
On 12 Sep 2009, at 1:46 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
For this and other RFCs, we started some years ago the work at
http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org
Just waiting for the IESG to take on it ...
So? What's the holdup?
___
Ietf mailing list
Hi,
It occurs to me that a small but potentially meaningful thing that the
IETF could do to push IPv6 adoption is move RFC 2460 from draft
standard to standard.
Iljitsch
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 27 jul 2009, at 9:43, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
This must mean that silently enabling IPv6 increases the number of
people for whom IPv6 works by a factor of around 100 (from 0.01% in
the general population
(http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/
said 0.01%.)
On 27 jul 2009, at 16:29, Danny McPherson wrote:
The 0.01% they talk about is TRAFFIC, not USERS. And it's bogus
anyway.
Not that I want to have this discussion here again (folks should
revisit the archives)
This is what I had to say about it:
On 26 jul 2009, at 12:45, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
I quote from thepiratebay.org home page:
IPv4 21.613.113 peers (10.992.697 seeders + 10.620.416 leechers) in
1.969.865 torrents on tracker.
IPv6 210.410 peers (115.584 seeders + 94.826 leechers) in 174.895
torrents on tracker.
Most
On 14 jul 2009, at 11:20, Doug Otis wrote:
For a third-party application to interpret the changing Word
document format, even in XML form, would require extensive and
ongoing support.
In principle, yes. In practice this would probably not be a huge deal
compared to what needs to happen
On 13 jul 2009, at 21:56, Douglas Otis wrote:
Visual Basic would represent a more likely tool, since it is already
supported by the Word application.
Only in some versions. In the latest MacOS version it's not supported.
This makes one wonder whether there could be a better way.
I think
On 9 jul 2009, at 1:56, Douglas Otis wrote:
The concern was voiced in opposition to suggestions for using Word
input files as a means to generate inputs for I-D or RFC generation
utilities.
Nobody suggested that.
I said that it would be useful to be able to use a standard issue
word
On 9 jul 2009, at 18:15, james woodyatt wrote:
B) is open for debate: what precisely should be the set of primary
natural languages used in IETF documents? Should it continue to be
English only? I'd very much prefer to see *that* discussion
vigorously deferred while our archival format
On 7 jul 2009, at 12:25, John C Klensin wrote:
The questions, or at least a subset of them, are
important. But we never manage to reach consensus, partially I
think because we make different assumptions about what is
important, and that wastes a lot of time.
If we really want to make
On 7 jul 2009, at 15:30, Julian Reschke wrote:
Thus, you can simply open the XML in the browser, and let the
browser convert to HTML.
Notwithstanding everything else I've said, this is pretty cool, makes
it much easier to find problems in the XML.
Is this kind of stuff covered in the
On 7 jul 2009, at 22:42, John C Klensin wrote:
The good thing is that the current situation leaves so much
to be desired that this should actually be doable.
I do not believe that we can reach agreement on even the last
statement. I think this discussion shows that our starting
assumptions
On 6 jul 2009, at 8:53, Yaakov Stein wrote:
OK, here is what happens on my netbook using your method.
What I see :
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Hm, it's not supposed to break lines between pre and
On 6 jul 2009, at 12:08, Melinda Shore wrote:
Plus, there appears to be a certain amount
of whimsy involved with rendering HTML and displays can be
inconsistent, which 1) is one of the complaints about the
current format, and 2) is undesirable for the display of
technical specifications.
I
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread,
hopefully the new subject
On 5 jul 2009, at 15:04, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Last but not least, just filter out anything between and and
replace a few xxx; sequences and you're back to plain text. We could
probably even format RFCs such that if you remove the HTML, you're
left with the current ASCII format.
You seemed
On 5 jul 2009, at 16:22, Dave Nelson wrote:
I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor, this might
be feasible, but I think by standard issue you mean commercially
available.
Standard issue = standard, typical. I used it in the sense of any
decent.
Any word processor can
On 3 jul 2009, at 0:35, Pete Resnick wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently
constrained.
Or, gee, we could generalize to a very constrained XML format
XML isn't a display format.
As Dave put it, the current RFC format is unfriendly, unnecessary,
possibly
On 3 jul 2009, at 13:13, Stewart Bryant wrote:
That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a
reader centric view.
Do we have any objective information on what format produced the
clearest information transfer in the reader.
Well, readers can't read what authors can't
On 2 jul 2009, at 10:47, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Due to his diminished eyesight he can't handle the text
of the document he is co-authoring without significant preprocessing.
Ok if we're going to have this discussion again:
PDF is a way to display documents on the screen the same way that
On 2 jul 2009, at 17:05, Stewart Bryant wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML
This seems obviously true everywhere outside the IETF mailing list.
The showstopper has always been with figures which need to do in
separate files. How do you manipulate the collection of files as a
1 - 100 of 628 matches
Mail list logo
