--On Monday, August 01, 2011 19:02 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
...
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the
plenaries and hold meetings during that time slot.
Margaret,
FWIW, I personally
--On Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:40 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
...
Actively being used. In production. So that taking it away
would hurt the entity using it, threaten the entity's comfort
and convenience, or just generally go against the stated
goals of making the
--On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:54 -0400 Worley, Dale R
(Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote:
From: Yoav Nir [y...@checkpoint.com]
Very appropriate for XKCD to post this just a few days before
an IETF meeting.
http://www.xkcd.com/927/
And yet sometimes a standard will sweep away
--On Friday, July 15, 2011 15:39 -0700 Doug Barton
do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
To address your concern about whether or not vendors are paying
attention to this discussion, and why historic status is
substantively different than off by default, no really, OFF
BY DEFAULT, I'll put my FreeBSD
--On Saturday, July 16, 2011 20:27 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 2:02 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: v6...@ietf.org; IETF
FWIW, +1
--On Friday, July 15, 2011 17:18 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
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
--On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:48 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Let me explain why I'm planning to include this sub-section.
Why? Your explanation lacks substance, and further effort
here is a waste of time.
The document as it stands is just fine, except for one
--On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:20 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Mykyta,
I think the draft is fine without this addition, which
contains some statements that I disagree with. I don't think
analysis is needed; this is all ancient history anyway.
Brian and
Ron
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:17 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: v6...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Another look at 6to4 (and other
--On Saturday, July 16, 2011 14:41 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Barry,
...
So, if only to increase my understanding, why do you think
reviewing this type of document (presumably through multiple
cycles as we quibble about language, etc.) is worth a Last
Call and the
Hi.
I've been thinking about this and having a few off-list
conversations and want to make a suggestion that draws together
a few others. Since many people don't like my long notes with
the conclusion at the end, this one is suggestion-first. If the
suggestion offends you sufficiently, you can
--On Friday, July 15, 2011 09:40 -0700 Joel Jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
So the rational for the advice document not being combined
with the standards action in it is that the later has some
polarizing impact, the advice document does not. the advice
document is through and done,
--On Saturday, July 16, 2011 08:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We can spend another few months debating the exact form of
words for a normative document advising implementors to do
what most of them are now doing; I don't care and it basically
doesn't
--On Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:00 -0700 Randall Gellens
ra...@qualcomm.com wrote:
At 6:19 PM -0400 7/13/11, John C Klensin wrote:
Content-type: text/noise;
noise-type=bogus-legal-disclaimer, charset=...
Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for
exhortations
--On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 09:38 -0700 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org wrote:
...
Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic
processing easier so receivers of this kind of notice
(mailing-list or other) can
+1
--On Saturday, 25 June, 2011 04:18 + Christian Huitema
huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
It seems that we have wide consensus to publish the advisory
document, not so much for the 6to4 historic part. Can we
just publish the advisory and be done with this thread?
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 16:10 -0700 james woodyatt
j...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:08 , John C Klensin wrote:
What I saw was what appeared to me to be some fairly strong
arguments for looking at the problem in a different way -- a
way that I've seen no evidence the WG
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 13:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think that's about right. There were several strong and very
raional opinions against this, including some who were not
involved in the similarly rough consensus in the WG
discussion. But
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 12:57 -0700 Doug Barton
do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
What I saw was what appeared to me to be some fairly strong
arguments for looking at the problem in a different way -- a
way that I've seen no evidence the WG considered at all.
That would be to explore
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 16:17 -0400 John Leslie
j...@jlc.net wrote:
and which are just to bring additional input to the IESG for a
non-consensus decision?
Clearly, RFC 2026 does not require any kind of consensus
for Informational documents.
...
John,
A small nit... While in this
Mike,
Answer from a 10Km altitude perspective...
Our rules do not have dependencies on particular licensing
terms, whether RAND, free license, free without any notification
or specific license, defensive/reciprocal, or otherwise. The
obligation of authors and companies is to disclose whatever
--On Monday, June 20, 2011 13:32 -0400 Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
...
It's a peak season destination. We seem to do this a lot.
March would be no better, but early November there would be, I
think, low peak.
What's a non-peak destination for July?
Phoenix. Probably
Given the controversies, I decided I needed to do a careful
reading of this document. While I respect and appreciate what
the authors are trying to do, as a would-be standards track
specification, it is pretty troubling. It is troubling
editorially as well.
I think all or most of the specific
--On Saturday, June 11, 2011 01:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
You're correct that some ISPs will try to get monopoly rents
out of the IPv4 shortage, and use CGN to capture customers in
walled gardens, but fortunately capitalism provides a solution
to such
--On Friday, June 10, 2011 12:10 -0400 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
dwor...@avaya.com wrote:
OTOH, my cable ISP provider has an Expected IPv6 Transition
Phases chart, in which Phase 3 says, Customer Premesis
Equipment (CPE) IP addressing: IPv6 only. And they've
started trials of IPv6 already.
--On Saturday, June 11, 2011 05:28 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
On 2011-06-11 05:05, John C Klensin wrote:
...
But, to the extent to which the motivation for moving 6to4 to
Historic is what Tony describes as kill-what-we-don't-like,
Unfortunately
--On Friday, June 10, 2011 15:10 -0700 Joel Jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
I'm a content provider. I'm am prepared to turn on more ipv6
services that are visible to consumers. 6to4 is a visible and
measurable source of collateral damage. If consenting adults
want to use it that's fine, I
+1
--On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:50 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
alexey.melni...@isode.com wrote:
Vint Cerf wrote:
setting aside interpretation and semantics for a moment,
would there be utility in maintaining tables for each
instance of Unicode?
Yes, because developers will have different
(Subject line changed to reflect my belief that this is not
about 5892bis. I've also removed the copy to the gen-art list
-- if this isn't about 5892bis, it isn't on their agenda, even
though Roni's review may have partially stimulated the thread.)
--On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 19:45 -0700 Paul
--On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 04:56 + Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
We've seen quite a few non-WG mailing lists announced, where
the title of the list was all we got, and we'd have no idea
whatsoever if we wanted to subscribe to it. Please, when we
send out
--On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 14:43 -0700 Paul Hoffman
paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
Section 5.1 of RFC5892 says If non-backward-compatible
changes or other problems arise during the
creation or designated expert review of the table of
derived property values, they should be flagged for
Sean,
Seems fine to me but, like Sam, I'd prefer to not clutter
abstracts For a specification RFC that is rendered Historic by
a new specification, the combination of an Obsoletes header
and a note in the Introduction ought to be sufficient.
While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage
--On Thursday, June 02, 2011 17:51 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
Agree, but producing such a no one cares anymore RFC and
getting it through the process should be lightweight enough
already. It should slide right through.
For better or worse, I don't believe that has
--On Thursday, May 05, 2011 09:13 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels'
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt as a BCP
--On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 08:27 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make
that happen, and how to deal with the increased number of
RFCs.
The annual review provides an alternative to deal with the
increased number of
--On Sunday, May 29, 2011 08:58 +0200 Simon Josefsson
si...@josefsson.org wrote:
in a Unicode 6.0 environment, evaluate U+19DA as PVALID and
therefore not raise that error, then it is not compliant
with RFC 5892, irrelevant of the Updates status of the
present document.
I don't see how.
Just for the record,..
I favor the publication of this document with a minimum of
further fuss.
I read and studied this document before the first I-D was
published, participated in discussion of it on the IDNABIS WG
list and again on the APPSAWG list. In each case, essentially
the same
--On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 16:43 -0400 Steven Bellovin
s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.
Unfortunately, the IEEE has
--On Thursday, May 12, 2011 08:50 -0700 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
My comment was in reply to Masataka Ohta's note saying that he
often evades the pricing on things like IEEE or ACM pappers
by finding free ones online. That looks like it won't be
possible going forward.
Current IEEE
--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 07:42 +0300 Pekka Savola
pek...@netcore.fi wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Steve Crocker wrote:
A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a
statement in the boilerplate of every RFC that says, RFCs
are available free of charge online from ...
The copyright
--On Monday, May 09, 2011 21:47 -0400 Ross Callon
rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
This reminds me of what a colleague once said about
government-run lotteries: A tax on people who are bad at
math. In this case the fools don't seem to be throwing all
that many dollars away (at least not per
--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 13:20 + John Levine
jo...@iecc.com wrote:
...
It's not just that. A little poking around in the ACM DL
reveals that they don't have any RFCs published after May
2004. It looks like someone did a one time data dump, and
nothing since. It's also fairly
--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 the instructions, Scholar is
using some heuristics
--On Monday, May 09, 2011 23:41 + John Levine
jo...@iecc.com wrote:
In article 516ebea6-e089-4952-ae33-de799e375...@mnot.net you
write:
If only there were some uniform resource locator system,
whereby we could use a string to both identify and locate
such a document, and include such a
--On Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:06 -0700 Bob Braden
bra...@isi.edu wrote:
I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation,
shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is
an IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care)
IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for
--On Friday, May 06, 2011 18:15 +0200 Martin Rex m...@sap.com
wrote:
The real problem tha the IETF is regularly facing are
constituencies that will fight hard against specifications
getting updated, improved or fixed, once they have been
published as RFC.
Martin,
That is an interesting
--On Friday, April 22, 2011 14:29 +0200 Francis Dupont
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
mail.ietf.org changed its IPv4 address (it was 64.170.98.32,
now it is 208.66.40.236) leaving at its previous address
something (i.e., a SMTP server) which blindly eats messages.
I strongly suggest to
--On Friday, April 22, 2011 18:14 +0200 Francis Dupont
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
So I'm having trouble guessing why your systems are still
seeing64.170.93.22, much less sending mail to it.
= a long time ago mail.ietf.org anti-spam
--On Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:49 -0700 Joel Jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 4/21/11 10:38 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/20/2011 2:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In the case of the IETF Chair I believe the issue is that
it's highly desirable, from a governance viewpoint, that the
--On Saturday, April 16, 2011 07:51 -0700 Lucy Lynch
lly...@civil-tongue.net wrote:
The implication is that the people sitting in the positions
of IAB Chair and IETF Chair are essential to the good
operation of the IAOC/Trust. Someone else from their groups
or even someone else that they
Steve,
Two things:
(1) Given the variable amount of time it takes to get RFCs
issued/ published after IESG signoff, are you and the WG sure
that you want to tie the phases of the phase-in procedure to RFC
publication?
(2) There is an incomplete sentence at the end of (2): This
allows CAs to
--On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:19 -0700 Bob Hinden
bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
Olaf,
On Apr 2, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
[as editor:]
It seems that the high order bit of this discussion circles
around the question on whether it a requirement for the IETF
Chair to
--On Friday, April 01, 2011 16:28 -0400 John R. Levine
jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses
out of the archives and is sending spam with multiple
addresses on the From: line through IETF and IRTF mailing
lists. Surely I'm not the only one
--On Thursday, March 24, 2011 02:14 +0100 Stefan Santesson
ste...@aaa-sec.com wrote:
I can't escape the feeling that this discussion of using
markup language editing to produce RFCs, is a bit upside down.
I'm much more concerned with draft writers having to deal with
markup syntax than I
--On Friday, March 25, 2011 13:06 -0400 Andrew G. Malis
agma...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that XML is the wave of the future, but I just want to
give Stefan a plug as a happy user that NroffEdit makes the
mechanical and formatting part of writing drafts almost
effortless.
And, had it
--On Thursday, March 17, 2011 12:36 -0400 Tony Hansen
t...@att.com wrote:
If we're going to put more work into xml2rfc, I would much
rather figure out what the production people are doing with
nroff that xml2rfc doesn't currenty do, and add twiddeles so
they can do that in xml2rfc and skip
--On Monday, March 07, 2011 10:50 -0800 Randy Presuhn
randy_pres...@mindspring.com wrote:
The IAB and IESG control STD1, and have every right and in
fact a responsibility to say what status they think any
document has. You or anyone else can disagree and have your
own list.
The
--On Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:15 + Adrian Farrel
adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg
04792.html
Adrian
Adrian,
With the understanding that this is a different question than
Mykyta's, how is someone new
--On Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:41 -0500 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
No, I do not agree with you.
Our current definition for historic, and our current choices
for when to move things, have worked sufficiently well.
I have not seen any evidence that there is a problem that
--On Thursday, February 24, 2011 09:42 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:59:23PM -0500, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I was impressed with just how steady that increase appears to
be over a reasonably extended period of time, as well as
its seeming to be
--On Monday, February 21, 2011 11:23 -0800 Bob Hinden
bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
Support for the xml2rfc tool was discussed on the IETF mail
list when Marshall Rose indicated he could no longer support
the tool. Several people volunteered to maintain the tool,
and they
Hi.
This is not an attempt to derail either of these RFPs, nor is it
a formal appeal (request for review). However, these two RFPs
raise an issue that may be worth some consideration.
The clear intent of the discussions leading up to RFC 4071/ BCP
101, and some of text in that document, was
--On Sunday, January 30, 2011 1:01 PM +1300 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Scott and John,
I don't see this as inconsistent with the current 2-stage
proposal, if the latter's omission of a requirement for
independent interoperable implementations for stage 2 is
--On Thursday, January 27, 2011 09:41 +0200 Gonzalo Camarillo
gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi,
yes, I also agree the first one is the most important point
and has not been addressed so far. If we want a system that
works (and is used), it needs to include incentives to move
from
+1 on all points, especially the first one.
john
--On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 22:29 -0500 Scott O. Bradner
s...@harvard.edu wrote:
1/ I still do not think this (modified) proposal will have any
realimpact on the number of Proposed Standard documents
that moveto a (in this
--On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:32 +0200 Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
We can have as high a barrier as necessary to ensure there are
no more than, say, 12 posters.
Yes, but that is another aspect of why I don't want to go down
this path. As soon as you say high barrier, you imply
--On Saturday, January 08, 2011 07:37 -0800 Lixia Zhang
li...@cs.ucla.edu wrote:
I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out,
without consultation to any of its original authors, and given
the rough consensus on ietf mailing list discussion is to keep
NETBLT RFC as is
--On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:35 -0800 Randy Presuhn
randy_pres...@mindspring.com wrote:
At issue though is that these individuals get paid
(sponsored) by someone, either directly or indirectly by
corporations and/or governments.
Not necessarily. Some of us have no employer and just
+1. Very strongly.
Whether the logistics of space and times could be worked out or
not, poster sessions strike me as a really bad idea and Fred has
summarized at least most of the reasons. If we had a high
barrier to posting I-Ds, it might be different. But we don't.
john
--On Monday,
--On Friday, January 07, 2011 21:26 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have
later been replaced/deprecated.
We assign labels to indicate the status of the specification,
not
--On Monday, January 03, 2011 10:49 -0500 Worley, Dale R
(Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote:
...
Whereas the NYT article seems to be describing large rooms
full of journalists and other technology illiterates, many of
whom are trying to send or receive streaming video, sometimes
the video of
--On Saturday, November 13, 2010 08:45 +0100 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 11/13/10 12:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
For protocol specs, our normal way to sort of competing and
variant proposals is to form a WG. We know that doesn't work
well for procedural documents.
Partially
--On Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:20 -0500 Marshall Eubanks
t...@americafree.tv wrote:
How many of those are volunteers/host/NOC/future host, and
how many are discretionary comp?
There was exactly 1 discretionary in Beijing.
Wearing no hats, and just my own personal opinion, this seems
Russ,
I'd like to make a suggestion that I hope you will find helpful.
We've now got your/the IESG's two-step proposal, Dave's
alternative, discussions about going directly to single step, an
orthogonal proposal about STD numbers (or an alternative), some
other suggestions that haven't made it
--On Saturday, 13 November, 2010 07:35 +0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 11/13/2010 7:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
We've now got your/the IESG's two-step proposal, Dave's
alternative, discussions about going directly to single step,
Single step???
That's
--On Thursday, 04 November, 2010 05:50 -0400 Ross Callon
rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
Commenting on one issue from John's email from Sat 10/30/2010
4:18am (and ignoring the issue of what John was doing up at
4am):
:-)
However, a change to the handling of documents that are
candidates for
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 12:20 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan
hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
On Oct 27, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
That's why I think we need a different set of labels, e.g.
Protocol-Quality. We need a statement about the perceived
quality of the protocol
Ted,
I agree with almost everything you say, but want to focus on one
issue (inline below).
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 16:15 -0700 Ted Hardie
ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
As we stare down this rathole one more time, let's at least be
certain that there is more than one rat down there,
A few quick observations...
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 13:20 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
...
While my instinct is that RFC publication would be desirable,
if that didn't seem workable we could move the idea a bit
closer to the Snapshot idea by posting the document in the
I-D series
--On Thursday, October 28, 2010 14:15 -0400 RJ Atkinson
rja.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 Oct 2010, at 13:29 , Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/28/2010 9:22 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Most times it would be better if IETF WGs initially create
an Experimental status RFC, possibly doing so quite
--On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:54 -0700 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 9:32 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
There are two problems that Russ's draft may very well solve:
One issue with our current system is that there is no
incentive to go from Proposed Standard to Draft
--On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 14:27 -0400 Ross Callon
rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
This is where I disagree with you. The simple change that Russ
has proposed is not what is taking away from discussion of the
actual barriers. What is taking attention away from discussion
of the actual
--On Friday, October 08, 2010 09:47 -0400 Steve Crocker
st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
Let me say this more strongly. These two defects, it wasn't
economically feasible ... and it didn't offer any
interesting/desirable new capabilities were mild compared to
an even bigger defect: There simply
On 10/8/10 1:02 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
everyone--
IPv6 may have been born with a developmental disability, but
we're not dealing with a corpse yet. The patient is still
alive, getting better, and with a bit of love and proper
care, might yet grow up to make better and
--On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 14:34 -0400 RJ Atkinson
rja.li...@gmail.com wrote:
...
However, in this case, that question is directly answered
in the article that Noel originally mentioned.
To quote directly:
I don't forsee a crisis, per se … the big driver,
in my mind,
--On Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:43 -0700 Randy Dunlap
rdun...@xenotime.net wrote:
...
the same people also complain when I trim.
So its a combination of pathological behaviours, UI, and
dominance behaviour
That should just be a function of where the UI software
positions the
--On Friday, September 24, 2010 08:17 -0700 Randy Dunlap
rdun...@xenotime.net wrote:
One thing that bothers me is when people do mixed-line posting
but end their reply say, 50% thru the message, but then they
don't delete the rest of the message, so the reader has to scan
the rest of the
--On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 08:53 -0700 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 9/21/2010 5:02 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
The list of accepted candidates should be posted on the IETF
site like the rest of the noncom information.
+1
On the other hand, the practical reality is that
--On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:19 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom,
On 2010-09-22 04:29, NomCom Chair wrote:
Hi Folks,
A few folks have submitted some very helpful comments and I'd
like to share the answers publicly.
Q: If the List is Open why
--On Friday, September 17, 2010 10:44 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
ves...@tana.it wrote:
On 16/Sep/10 01:57, John C Klensin wrote:
[...] I think it is safe to conclude that the rough consensus
in the email is that the mechanism is really not workable
regardless of whether it can be implemented
--On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 13:59 -0700 SM
s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hello,
At 09:37 08-08-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
This is a summary review, with a focus on design goals and
systems-level issues.
Based on my reading of the specification, much more in-depth
reviews of this
--On Friday, September 03, 2010 12:08 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
t...@americafree.tv wrote:
This sounds like there is potential for crowd sourcing here.
For example, I can tell you nothing about Vonage, but a fair
amount about Cox Cable Internet. What you want to know is
known, just not
--On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 17:36 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Surprising as it may seem, I was aware of the prior existence
of FTP and Telnet.
I actually assumed that. Where I think there was a disconnect
is in your understanding of how they were used and by whom.
--On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 13:54 -0400 Noel Chiappa
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar
As far as I recall *reading* (I wasn't around at the
time :-) ) email was a couple of FTP commands?
That was more back in the NCP days (prior
--On Monday, August 30, 2010 21:57 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think
about weighing the location preference by number of
participants from certain regions.
Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her
+1 on all of the analysis/ observations below. Couldn't say it
better myself and have tried.
john
--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 17:10 -0700 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
At the risk of turning this into a string of competing
anectdotes
It turned into that long ago. In terms
--On Monday, August 30, 2010 08:46 -0700 Paul Hoffman
paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
At 5:50 PM -0700 8/27/10, Randall Gellens wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it depends on
the primary purpose of the visit.
...even though the first answer on the FAQ on the IETF site
--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 14:29 -0500 Mary Barnes
mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Joel,
Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a
wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile
environment for women. My guess is that you've never
personally been in a
--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 15:59 -0700 Ole Jacobsen
o...@cisco.com wrote:
John,
I agree 100% with everything you said here, execpt for the
part about we don't get it. I don't think I need to go over
again why Maastricht was chosen nor elaborate further on the
surprises we encountered
--On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 07:54 -0400 Richard L. Barnes
rbar...@bbn.com wrote:
FWIW, I was required to provide such a letter for a visa to
Saudi Arabia earlier this year. So it's not without precedent.
--Richard
On Aug 24, 2010, at 11:59 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
Mary
It seems
501 - 600 of 1824 matches
Mail list logo
