On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:16 -0700, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
2) In the following, we suggest that ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
MIB-related details) be updated to reflect MIBs. Although MIB
modules are written using a subset of ASN.1, the RPC does not check all
ASN.1, we only check MIBs. This
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 01:10 -0700, Amanda Baber wrote:
Hi,
The link in RFC3315 is actually incorrect -- it should have been
http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers, without the file
extension, and there's an erratum about this. HTML was generally (if
not exclusively) reserved for
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 19:12 -0400, Samuel Weiler wrote:
With that said, there are some things that need clarification, and the
doc sorely needs an editorial pass. As-is, the doc is not ready for
publication. I will be happy to review the doc again once it's been
thoroughly edited.
It
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 17:00 -0500, Kim Kinnear wrote:
This says MAY leave open. That's not the complement to SHOULD close.
We don't really care if you keep it open or not. Really.
If you think that you will be happier, keep it open. If
you think it is simpler to close it
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 11:31 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
for changes that need to change the system's semantics, you
change the certificates in a way that relying parties that don't
understand the change won't accept the certificate.
Sure. The way to do that is to issue a certificate with a
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
This document defines an identity-based encryption
--On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:34:50 PM -0400 Barry Leiba
barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a distinction, here, between a protocol and a user interface
for configuration. My mother doesn't know whom to trust, except that
she knows that she (at least kinda-sorta) trusts
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like
--On Wednesday, February 03, 2010 03:27:01 PM -0800 Russ Allbery
r...@stanford.edu wrote:
SM s...@resistor.net writes:
At 17:03 01-02-10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ah, thank you. Changed to SHOULD on the assumption that the (pre-2119)
language in RFC 1034 was intended to have roughly the same
--On Thursday, February 04, 2010 01:59:36 PM -0500 Jeffrey Altman
jalt...@secure-endpoints.com wrote:
On 2/4/2010 12:02 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 03, 2010 03:27:01 PM -0800 Russ Allbery
r...@stanford.edu wrote:
SM s...@resistor.net writes:
At 17:03 01-02-10
--On Thursday, February 04, 2010 02:20:27 PM -0500 Jeffrey Altman
jalt...@secure-endpoints.com wrote:
On 2/4/2010 2:05 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
That's not the text we're talking about.
Sure. Context was lost in the thread as the message-ids are not
consistent. The text I think is being
--On Friday, January 08, 2010 07:28:51 AM -0800 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS '
draft-allbery-afs-srv-records-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
I
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the IAOC's job
for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to ensure
the
logistics for productive IETF meetings.
--On Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:16:44 PM -0400 John C Klensin
john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I really don't think (3) is a good idea, but an unqualified
MUST ... UTF8, SHOULD SASLprep
strikes me as a terrible idea simply because the same character,
coded in different ways through no fault of
--On Tuesday, September 15, 2009 02:55:54 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
nicolas.willi...@sun.com wrote:
I think the right answer is to leave _query_ strings unnormalized and
require that _storage_ strings be normalized (see my separate reply on
that general topic, with a different Subject:, just
--On Saturday, August 08, 2009 10:14:33 AM -0400 Phil Shafer
p...@juniper.net wrote:
Randy Bush writes:
now we know where the ipr is. and we have lengthy discussion of who,
how, why, and black helicopters.
Can we GPL/CCL the artwork? Or would this mean that I have
to give a t-shirt to
--On Thursday, January 08, 2009 02:49:16 PM -0800 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
From my perspective, the best approach involves keeping the general case
simple. The documents that have been transferred outside the IETF in the
past five years is a single digit number, a tenth of a percent
--On Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:32:12 AM -0500 Contreras, Jorge
jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com wrote:
For background, the trademark license was included in RFC 3978 because
someone was concerned about Contributors who submitted documents to IETF
for standards-track use and included
--On Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:18:37 PM -0700 Cullen Jennings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find the claim that attacks are easier to do with VoIP Configuration
Server Address than the TFTP Server Name to be pretty dubious.
Me too.
That said, I think this security discussion is going
--On Wednesday, November 26, 2008 02:58:25 AM -0500 Samuel Weiler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The security considerations section cites rogue DHCP servers as attack
vectors, but doesn't do enough to encourage the use of DHCP Auth.
In many deployments, DHCP is used by devices which have no prior
--On Tuesday, December 02, 2008 03:53:58 PM -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Tuesday, 02 December, 2008 15:23 -0500 Ralph Droms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam - I think most of the issues in your review of
draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04 can be resolved by reviewing
the
I support adoption of these proposed guidelines, but have a couple of minor
comments...
After an erratum is reported, a report will be sent to the authors and
Area Directors (ADs) of the WG in which it originated. If the WG has
closed or the document was not associated with a WG,
The following sentence appears near the beginning of section 4:
In retrospect, one of the
advantages of ASCII [X3.4-1978] when it was chosen was that the code
space was full when the Standard was first published. There was no
practical way to add characters or change code point assignments
--On Monday, December 17, 2007 05:00:46 PM +0100 Tobias Gondrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DM Please note that the document explicitly states the requirements
which are called out as Rxx. There requirements are meant to be coherent
with RFC-2119 language and these are indeed covered as such. The
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like
On Monday, October 01, 2007 10:34:37 AM -0600 Danny McPherson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that in real deployments just this behavior has broken things
on occasion, as many firewall and other such policy application points
assume things like DNS resolution will only be UDP/53
On Tuesday, September 25, 2007 09:36:23 AM +1000 Mark Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Introduction seems a bit defensive in stating that the DOS attacks
are not due to any flaw in the design of DNS or its implementations.
While the blame for the attacks lies with the attackers, some
On Saturday, September 08, 2007 01:53:36 PM -0700 Eric Rescorla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexey wrote:
This message is trying to summarize recent discussions on
draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt.
Several people voiced their support for the document (on IETF mailing
list and in various
On Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:56:59 PM -0400 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
On Monday, July 02, 2007 07:01:28 AM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And from a security point I want to see as much NAT as possible.
Whereas I want my applications to work, and people to stop conflating NAT
and firewalls.
You don't want to see as much NAT as
On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 06:56:10 PM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On a first scan of your email I thought to myself, I agree with most of
it and so pondered about the problem that I was trying to put forth in
front of the community. The conclusion was that
On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:40:43 PM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian, Scott,
Many thanks for your responses, but here are some followup notes.
The problem I see is that WG chairs and ADs have a lot of latitude in
running WGs or areas.
This is not a problem;
On Sunday, May 20, 2007 01:41:29 PM -0700 Eric Rescorla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that these specs should explicitly specify which TLS version
to support. As a practical matter, this is either 1.0 or 1.1, since
1.2 is not yet finished. Unfortunately, which one to require isn't
really
On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:16:30 AM +0200 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The assumption is false: the goal of free software is not to make the
Internet work better.
The assumption is not false. The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet
work better. I assume Brian
On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:34:42 AM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, I think your concerns about this particular license are
overstated. Neither this patent license nor the open-source software
licenses you quote are as buggy as you seem to think
On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:09:24 PM -0700 Randy Presuhn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
From: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-williams-on-channel-binding (On the Use
ofChannel Bindings to Secure
On Friday, March 30, 2007 10:12:14 AM -0700 Paul Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:50 AM -0500 3/29/07, Mark Brown wrote:
I have experienced some surprises when mixing law and Internet standards.
To try to avoid surprises, I have hired IPR attorneys at two different
firms to review my
On Friday, March 30, 2007 02:59:51 PM -0400 Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only if there are multiple, independent, interoperable implementations.
On the contrary, this is one case where we must be careful _not_ to allow
interoperability. If the robots could interoperate,
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 02:39:49 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'd be nice if there was a way for remote participants who are able to
speak to do so. We tried ad-hoc VOIP + MP3 feed at IETF67 in the KITTEN
WG, but the round-trip latency was awful -- we need a
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 01:10:25 PM -0700 Joel Jaeggli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
It'd be nice if there was a way for remote participants who are able to
speak to do so. We tried ad-hoc VOIP + MP3 feed at IETF67 in the KITTEN
WG, but the round-trip latency was
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 03:46:27 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:42:33PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 02:39:49 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'd be nice if there was a way for remote
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 03:59:45 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:51:05PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Perhaps Sun would like to volunteer its system for an experiment?
It isn't ours. As best I can tell we use some high-end conference
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 think it's unfair to call people who do that process wonks or any other
derogatory term. Most
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 03:51:56 PM -0700 Andy Bierman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonk_%28slang%29
According to wikipedia, a policy wonk is
someone knowledgeable about and fascinated by details of government
policy and programs
If that is derogatory then I'm
On Monday, March 19, 2007 11:56:07 AM -0400 Steve Silverman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be simpler, cheaper, and more reliable to have one guy with
a whistle in each meeting who could blow the whistle and ask for the
speaker's name when appropriate.
That guy is called the chair.
On Wednesday, March 07, 2007 04:23:20 PM -0800 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do need to revise the architecture description. Using IP addresses as
implicit signalling
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Another instance that
On Wednesday, February 28, 2007 03:56:44 PM -0500 Eric Rosen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In many cases (probably the vast majority) where a document is
advancing despite a downward normative reference, the referenced
document (and the technology described therein) is no less stable
On Tuesday, February 13, 2007 08:33:44 PM + Adrian Farrel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main IETF mailing list is a compromise, but not particularly good as
it may obscure the other traffic on the list.
Oh, yes; it would be a shame if discussion of documents in IETF Last Call
caused
On Monday, February 12, 2007 10:26:13 AM -0800 C. M. Heard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC
4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the
Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents.
I disagree with this
On Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:20:54 AM -0500 The IESG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
- 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents '
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007 08:26:01 PM +0100 Christian Vogt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should probably be rephrased to:
This UPDATE packet is acknowledged by the peer. For reliability in
the presence of packet loss, the UPDATE packet is retransmitted in
case
no
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:04:37 PM +0100 Christian Vogt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that the protocol right now only allows type-1 locators, do you
think that the handling of different locator types could be left to
those protocol extensions that specify them?
I think you need to
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like
On Wednesday, January 17, 2007 04:31:37 PM -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
s/exist a large number/exists a large number/ in 8 (?)
I think you're right, but it sounds funny to my ear, so I'd prefer there
are a large number.
This is getting into the realm of trivial
On Friday, January 12, 2007 04:04:08 PM -0500 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto
shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs will produce
documents. That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds.
Does the
On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM + Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE
---
* IETF process related to document advancement was not carried out;
e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments which the
document
On Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:21:37 AM +0100 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
This is venturing into dangerous territory. The best expertise on
the technical issues involved _should_ be in the WG that produced the
document. Expecting to find _better_
On Thursday, January 04, 2007 03:12:07 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see where you get that from. I can think of two cases where
we might get such an assertion from an AD:
1. The IETF Last Call did generate dissent.
I'd expect this to be the common case.
On Monday, January 08, 2007 11:03:00 AM + Adrian Farrel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just
post-it notes.
Not true. Remember that DISCUSS is a ballot position. As I understand it
from my conversation with an IESG member
On Monday, January 08, 2007 12:52:16 PM +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This lack of communication may cause friction. IESG members raise
issues, which ends up the tracker, and for which they might not
receive any response at all on. They may get the impression that the
On Monday, January 08, 2007 08:09:58 PM +0100 Frank Ellermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?
Can't they ? At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted.
Not at present. The writeup is posted by whoever processed the
On Wednesday, December 20, 2006 07:19:10 AM -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since we rely on volunteers for a number of IETF activities, beyond
writing specs, it is at least worth exploring this additional avenue of
saving money (and maybe even getting better operations,
On Monday, December 18, 2006 10:41:56 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing
number of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to
know enough about IETF procedures
On Sunday, December 17, 2006 06:05:45 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary, I
On Monday, December 11, 2006 04:34:54 PM -0600 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 05:30:26PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
Nico:
Use of the NULL ESP algorithm implies no confidentiality protection,
while use of the NULL AH algorithm implies no integrity
On Wednesday, November 22, 2006 04:00:49 PM + Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SMTP, on the other hand is an operational failure and even today, no one
really knows how to properly implement and properly maintain an SMTP
service. The
On Monday, October 23, 2006 04:14:10 PM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) Any language in 3683 that appears to limit other actions
with regard to mailing list abuse needs to be overridden.
Agree. IMHO this is by far the most important part of Brian's proposal, or
of its
On Friday, October 20, 2006 04:01:13 AM +0200 Frank Ellermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the draft in question that means that it's now at 12:2, and
if one member changes his or her mind it could fail with a 11:3.
You are confusing the normal balloting process with the alternative one.
On Wednesday, October 04, 2006 02:31:36 PM -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vidya good commentary, maybe I can add some more. The NEA, per the
charter-need's justification statement says:
Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) architectures have been implemented
in the industry to
On Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:27:36 AM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good. If we disagree, it is only on what a formal change
constitutes. I would consider an in-depth summary of what is
wrong with 2026 (at least on any basis other than a personal
informational opinion
On Friday, September 29, 2006 11:28:56 PM +0200 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My point here is that the three step process is not used as intended.
Existing practice clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of our
work - far more than intended - never reaches beyond PS. This is
On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 08:49:19 AM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. But that isn't what the term means in common (non-IETF)
practice and the document is quite specific that the return
value contain exactly one label (er, item) with no provision
at all for two.
On Thursday, September 28, 2006 07:32:17 AM +1000 Mark Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except it doesn't say label; that's your interpretation. I grant it
is an entirely reasonable interpretation, and in fact the alternate
interpretation that was suggested is not one that would have
On Thursday, September 14, 2006 01:37:11 PM +0100 Tim Chown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't he barred from posting here?
Perhaps, but one of the checks against abuse of the ability to bar posters
is that they can still get a point across if they can convince someone else
to forward their
On Tuesday, September 12, 2006 06:06:08 PM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are correct. I did not address that issue, partially
because, personally, I do not consider it very important. While
documenting what we are doing would be nice, I don't believe the
community is
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Ned Freed wrote:
I don't think the lack of support for unencrypted IMAP or POP is quite
sufficient. What's to stop an attacker acting as a MITM (by
publishing a bogus SRV record or whatever) getting an unencypted connection
and
turning around and connecting to the server
On Thursday, September 07, 2006 07:07:51 PM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, 2195 is not, itself, a SASL method and there is nothing
in the procedural rules as I understand them that permits the
SASL WG to de-standardize it (you could write any of several
styles of
On Thursday, September 07, 2006 07:48:45 PM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, he could ask that 2195 be advanced as-is, but I would expect such
an effort to fail, as that version has turned out to be somewhat
underspecified. Multiple interoperable implementations
On Friday, September 08, 2006 04:49:11 AM +0200 Frank Ellermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's my real problem: If users or worse implementors don't
know how stuff works it's bad. What you end up with are some
hypothetical situations like this:
A hypothetical situation is one that
On Thursday, September 07, 2006 08:12:44 PM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The solution to this particular problem is to use SSL as the transport.
IMAP and POP both support this use. It is a trivial matter to discover
that IMAPS is supported using an SRV record.
Of
On Wednesday, September 06, 2006 02:08:06 PM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One simple fix here would be to publish the list on IETF announce BEFORE
it goes to the secretariat and to ONLY use that list regardless of
whether people are excluded or not.
I like that
On Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:11:51 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Galvin wrote:
But there is a part of the process that is not public: the
actual selection of eligible volunteers.
1) The criteria are public. 2) The result is public, with the intention
of
On Thursday, August 31, 2006 06:43:53 AM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore the absence of a complaint makes things worse not better.
Phill, I can assure you from personal knowledge that at least one complaint
_was_ made. As Brian noted, Andrew took action
On Thursday, August 31, 2006 09:26:11 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
The goal of
this process is not just to make it hard to game the system, but also
for everyone to be completely confident the system has not been
gamed. Allowing the same person that
On Tuesday, July 25, 2006 04:24:01 PM -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'd like to suggest that 2.e be changed a little bit:
OLD:
Submit document to IESG for review of
conflicts or confusion with IETF process, end runs around
working group activities, and
On Tuesday, July 25, 2006 03:44:21 PM -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there Audit Fans - Lets look at NoteWell and figure out how it
interacts with Corporate Governance and Compliance Policies...
First of all, you keep using the word NOTEWELL as if it is the name of
On Thursday, July 20, 2006 01:04:39 PM -0500 Pete Resnick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/19/06 at 9:02 AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
...it makes no sense to appeal to ISOC that the process itself was
unfair and has failed to produce a proper result, if there wasn't
first an appeal on
On Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:02:23 AM -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or
Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???
Heh. Network isn't an IETF working group; the phrase Network
On Wednesday, July 12, 2006 06:09:42 PM -0400 Michael Richardson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
$177/person for FB.
So, if I put $20 of looneys in my pocket each day
... your pocket would be pretty heavy. Since water, soda, and cookies are
all
On Monday, July 17, 2006 10:11:07 AM -0400 Jeffrey Altman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me Paris and Montreal were the
two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
ability to provide network access in the
On Saturday, July 15, 2006 05:24:45 AM -0400 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks. gee whiz, that was a bunch of work for me. You had a tool? arg...
It's best to always ask Henrik and/or Bill if they have a tool.
Often they do, and if not, it may take less time to produce it than
On Monday, July 17, 2006 06:46:11 AM -0700 Andy Bierman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks. This was wonderful, and
about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
I
On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:03:34 AM +0100 Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Stephen Campbell wrote:
Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los
Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's Surfliner to San Diego.
These trains
On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:14:00 PM +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the minutes are
properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes.
Yes, but you have to be careful. Many organizations follow a practice in
which the members approve the minutes of
On Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:45:52 AM -0400 Bill Fenner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like 3 out of 4 data channel establishment mechanisms
are broken with this FTP server software and configuration for
IPv4. I didn't test with IPv6.
I did, inadvertently. PASV worked, as did at
On Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:53:59 PM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agh, replied to the wrong message there in case it was not obvious.
I was not suggesting using the subway in the hotel as an IPv6 platform.
-Original Message-
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
On Wednesday, June 28, 2006 09:45:27 AM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think it would be a good thing to make it an inviolate rule that
a chair can never be an editor.
Nor do I.
I do think that there should be a fixed rule prohibiting members of the
IESG
On Monday, June 26, 2006 11:24:55 AM -0400 Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
wrote:
Perhaps requirements documents should be more like rationale documents:
we chose to solve this problem in this way because of this...
In general we need to discourage the meme requirements documents.
No, we
On Monday, June 26, 2006 04:22:57 PM -0400 IETF Administrative Director
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IAOC is negotiating a service level agreement with ICANN/IANA for
services it performs on behalf of the IETF. The SLA supplements the MOU
executed by ICANN and the IETF in 2000.
Who does
On Friday, June 23, 2006 05:24:11 PM -0400 Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:18:40 -0400
Burger, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would offer that in *some* groups the running code bar is reasonable.
I would have little objection to requiring running code as a
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
