Cyrus,
Even the notion of First Name and Last Name is specific to a certain group
of cultures. Family Name and Given Name don't always go in the same order,
and it is not always the case that people are called by their given name in
informal situations, as you can see in the drafts on
Hi Mike,
On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
We have an IETF culture - like it or not. It changes over time, as the
population changes. We can't and shouldn't expect to be able to change it by
fiat, or to adopt as whole cloth a bias free culture (for
Hi Tom,
On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
If we required the IETF to reflect the diversity of people who are,
e.g., IT network professionals, then the IETF would fall apart for lack
of ability.
[…]
If the ADs of the IETF have to represent the diversity of the
Excellent post, Ted. I really like your suggestions, and I think these are the
types of things we should be doing to more widely leverage the talents of
people who are available to participate in the IETF.
Margaret
On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 6, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
If we read each document in the world we know the answer; who owns the
copyright for these documents? so only owner can update it or to
change category name as per proposed,
All of the (at least recent) RFCs
On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 3/22/2013 4:43 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
Granted, it may be that the list of _qualified_ candidates is less
diverse than the set of all people who are willing to run. But, if so,
that isn't because there aren't companies
On Mar 22, 2013, at 5:47 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
But I suspect the idea that there are fewer companies when the word startup
seems to automatically imply something Internet related is wrong. There's
plenty of small companies, but engagement in the IETF is either
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
Sex
Sexual orientation
The U.S. has a similar (although not identical) list, and it may
On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
I'd love to get out of this rat hole. Perhaps the signatories of the
open letter can restate the problem they see so it isn't made in terms of
race and gender.
The letter specifically mentioned the axes of race, gender,
I have an extra social ticket I could sell if anyone wants it. I'll probably
try to be on one of the first buses, so contact me soon if you want it.
Margaret
On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:20 PM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Diversity of IETF Leadership begins at the bottom. It is challenging for
reasons which I unfortunately cannot describe. I am supportive of the
effort. I am not comfortable with quotas. My preference is to see that
On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:54 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
In other words, the statement that gender and racial diversity in
groups makes them smarter has no basis in fact. Do you feel that
an all-female group is stupider than a similarly sized group that is
equal parts male and
On Mar 7, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Unfortunately, Sam, your model is simply wrong.
The IESG defines the job requirements. The Nomcom selects according to those
criteria.
I'm been in a number of Nomcom's that wished for some flexibility concerning
job
Hi Russ,
On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
The rest of your question ought to be discussed at the TSVAREA meeting in
Orlando.
I have looked at the agenda of the TSV Area Open Meeting (on Wednesday from
9:00am to 11:30am), and it includes the following
Hi Jari,
On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
And I think we should have a broader view about this than just updating the
requirements for the seat. There are a couple of other aspects to consider as
well. First, perhaps the way that we have organised TSV is
On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we
are doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to
me…
I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we
Hi Eric,
The IETF Chair (who also chairs the IESG) is not selected by the IESG members
from amongst themselves. The IETF Chair is chosen by the nomcom directly.
The IAB chair is chosen by the IAB as you have described.
Margaret
On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com
Hi Russ,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between
limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is
more likely to be able to learn about it?
Margaret
On Mar 4, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Mary == Mary
I think the problem is that if they said 0:00, it would be on Tuesday, February
26th, not Monday, February 25th, and people would submit a day late...
Margaret
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated
I am more concerned than disappointed about Marshall's disappearance from the
IETF. However, I agree that complete absence from an I* position for three
months without explanation should be grounds for recall. So, please consider
me to be one of the signers of this petition.
Marshall, if
On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 26/10/2012 02:22, Richard Barnes wrote:
would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such
as removal from a position) retroactively is not fair,
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This
On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I get what you're saying, but this is one of those times where (arguably
for the better) we've created a difficult procedure that should be
infrequently exercised. We should follow the procedure because it _is_
the procedure. And then use the
Why do you want to rule out employees of those groups?
I don't think that most of them would have any interest in volunteering for the
nomcom, but why would it be a problem if they did? I mean, I could picture
someone who worked for the RFC Editor who was also technically involved in the
+1
On Aug 6, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
[RS ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was a
boondoggle. The Hilton in Minneapolis of all the IETF meetings I’ve
attended has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc.
If we were to choose one place in
On Apr 27, 2012, at 2:53 PM, SM wrote:
Mary Barnes is the only participant who mentions the gender problem. As
such, I gather that the IETF does not have a gender problem. :-)
The rest of us are too busy struggling to succeed in this male-dominated regime
to have time to read these threads.
What is the value in publishing a living document as an RFC (which inherently a
static, archival document)? Wouldn't it make more sense to convert the
contents of this document to a Wiki page that we could jointly edit and
maintain going forward?
Margaret
On Dec 7, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Dave
Hi Russ,
I don't know what an antitrust policy is... Could you explain?
Is this something like a conflict of interest policy? Or is it a policy to
avoid situations where we might be engaging in some sort of collusion?
Your plan sounds fine to me, on general principles, but I'd like to know
On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They state the things that
are prohibited from discussion at their meetings and on their mail lists.
Oh, I've been involved in some industry SDOs that had something like this...
Rules against
Hi SM,
On Nov 29, 2011, at 1:38 AM, SM wrote:
There isn't any information about why an antitrust policy is needed except
for a suggestion from an insurance agent.
It was mentioned that the IETF counsel indicated that such a policy is needed.
Addressing some of your point:
As far as I
HI Spencer,
We are responsible for the tutorials, which includes deciding what new
tutorials are needed, and working with people in the community to deliver them.
Not all of the people who _teach_ the tutorials are on the EDU Team, although
there is some overlap.
There as been discussion of
Hi SM,
Dear 2011-2012 nominating committee members,
You requested feedback from the IETF community for positions on the IESG, IAB
and IAOC. As none of the candidates shared their views about a simple
question that was asked on the IETF mailing list, I gather that none of them
are
Hi Fred,
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG.
I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there
actually is such a requirement. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar
BOF (and I would argue that there
+1
On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:04 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden
bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group
rename what it currently calls LISP to something else. To
put it politely, the
+1
It would also be good to expose the conflict lists that the chairs have
provided ahead of time, so that WG participants can point out (hopefully to the
chairs) potential conflicts that the chairs may have omitted.
Margaret
On Oct 11, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In
I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts. However, I thought
this might help us avoid some of the issues we've had in the past, where
obvious group-level conflicts are omitted, and meetings have to be rescheduled
at the last moments.
Margaret
On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:06 PM,
Hi Jari,
On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IESG discussed the situation with this draft on its call yesterday and
decided to approve the document. A formal approval notice will be forthcoming
in the next couple of days.
What did the IESG decide about when/how this draft
Hi All,
Within the IETF, it has become common to use the term a A Modest Proposal...
as a title for actual proposals for process change within the IETF. This
causes some cultural dissonance for me, personally, and I want to make sure
that people are aware of the origin of this term, and the
I greatly prefer the current meeting schedule to one that packs meetings in to
a shorter time period on Friday. As another poster mentioned, I too am tired by
Friday, and I'm unlikely to stay focused through 5 straight hours of meetings,
especially if I'm expected to keep going two hours past
Hi David,
On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:30 PM, David Morris wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was
no contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in
arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting.
That is a good point. The
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal
implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are
treating China unfairly in this discussion...
On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
The PGP Key signing is a good question - I have no idea -
Dear Trustees,
I agree with the message from Thomas Narten, cc:ed below. I expected,
and request that you provide, a reply to John Klensin's appeal that is
more directly responsive to the issues that John raised.
Also, I agree with John's concerns about discussion of this appeal
being
Hi Marshall and Bob,
Could you please let us know the current status of this appeal?
In the plenary in Stockholm, I understood you to say that you _do_
consider the decisions of the IAOC and the Trust to be subject to the
appeals procedure, which I think is a good decision. However, it has
I don't see any compelling reason to change the name of this group at
this point...
We obviously could change the name if we wanted to, but it would
significant cost -- setting up a new mailing list, getting everyone
subscribed there, renaming all of the drafts (and thus losing the edit
Keith Moore wrote:
It seems to me that the general problem is not multiple interfaces, but
multiple addresses per host. It doesn't matter (much) whether those
addresses result from multiple physical interfaces, a combination of
physical and virtual network interfaces, multiple prefixes being
George Tsirtsis wrote:
There is, however, significance in the presence of different
interfaces in a given non-router node...I do not think either of the
other two points (multiple IFs, multiple routes) should be lost
completely in the effort to widen/clarify the charter.
George
P.S.: It would
Hui Deng wrote:
Hi, Jari,
What I suggest is like the below:
Connections to Multiple Networks (mif)
Personally, I think that this sort of disconnect between WG name and
acronym would create long-lived confusion about the name of the
Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Last Modified: 2009-04-20
I like this version of the charter very much. I think it does a good
job of capturing the area that we need to discuss within MIF. I am
hopeful that we can get our charter approved ASAP, so
Dean Willis wrote:
My shaman once said For God, everything is just a question of
policy. But, we need to reduce this problem to a more mortal scope,
and I'm not quite certain that the proposed charter text accomplishes
this goal.
I agree with you that this is a complex problem. The
Christian Vogt wrote:
The second topic talks about a problem of applications: When initiating
a connection, which pair of source and destination address (and
consequently which pair of interfaces) should be used? Again, this
issue may come up independently of whether a host has one or
Hi Lars,
Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2009-4-22, at 2:19, Christian Vogt wrote:
It seems that folks are considering two related, yet still orthogonal
topics for inclusion in the MIF charter:
- Conflicts between configuration parameters.
- Issues with address selection.
I agree that both of these
Hi Everyone,
I am sending this message to several large groups of people with
considerable overlap in an effort to reach everyone who has been
participating (actively or passively) in the NAT66 discussions.
PLEASE, PLEASE do not reply to this full list. Send any replies to
the new
Hi Ned,
On Nov 26, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Again, it seems clear that since I'm using it I don't regard it as
unacceptable... The real question is how it will compare to whatever
IPv6
automatic renumbering support ends up in SOHO routers. (Please note
that I am
entirely
While most of the discussion about killing NAT66 is happening on the
IETF list, we have a much more constructive discussion going on in
behave regarding how to define an IPv6 NAT that will meet the needs of
network administrators and end-users, while being less destructive to
the
On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it
deployed is an
essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
This seems to ignore the fact that we already have a widely deployed
solution to site renumbering: NAT.
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Eric,
According to the ADs and WG chairs, the correct forum for
the
NAT66 discussion is the BEHAVE WG. So, let's discuss it
there.
Margaret
On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Ray Pelletier wrote:
The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in
September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing
software done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that
time thinking of code contributed by IETF volunteers. See: http://
Since our main source of income is meeting fees, I wonder why you
think that financial issues would motivate us to hold fewer meetings...
Margaret
On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Well one reason is that it has never happened that way and this
institution finds it
Document Lifecycle
Presenters: Alice Hagens and Margaret Wasserman
This tutorial offers an overview of producing documents in the IETF,
from version 00 of an Internet-Draft to publication as an RFC. We
will cover the working group process, and the required and suggested
contents of an Internet
Hi Mike,
For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence for.
The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for]
the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information
Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA.
See my point?
Not
, and people who are interested
in this topic should probably read all three of them.
Margaret
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:23 PM
To: Margaret Wasserman; 'Michael StJohns'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE
Hi Mike,
Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor
Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs
The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding
from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the
banner of the RFC Series.
I'll grant that you have a much
Hi Eliot,
I disagree. Just as I expect you to use your judgment on the
IESG I expect the IAB to use their judgment. Community
oversight comes in the form of the NOMCOM. If you believe
that oversight is not effective, then let's discuss that instead.
If an AD or the IESG makes a
Hi John,
I think I understand what you are saying, and I certainly wouldn't object to
some more explicit limitations on this experiment.
However the current draft does explicitly say that no suspensions can extend
past the end of this experimental period (18-months from when it starts), so
There are certainly some major weaknesses in the current IETF mailing list
management procedures, and those weaknesses are very well-described in this
document. I agree that we need to address those weaknesses. However, I am
not sure that I agree with the fix proposed in this document.
This
There is an interesting lesson to be learned from our mailing list
management situation...
The mailing list procedures draft currently under discussion
(draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt) contains the following correct
assessment of our current mailing list management situation:
the current pressures, and I think that our efforts would be better spent on
working on a real BCP proposal along the lines you have described below.
Margaret
-Original Message-
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:43 AM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc
Hi Harald,
The tracker tracks
Sorry, I didn't realize where I would find RFC Editor notes in the public
tracker. I have now been properly educated.
the RFC Editor note was modified (by me) on July 24, 2004.
The reason was a comment from Ted Hardie on July 21,
augumenting a DISCUSS
I know that these comments are late for IETF LC, but Brian Carpenter
indicated that I should share them here, anyway...
I generally support publication of this draft as an Experimental RFC, and I
hope that the IESG will use this mechanism to support more moderate and more
effective mailing list
Hi Harald,
- About five people send thank-you notes, and wonder whether
the IESG will get off its butt and allow him to be suspended
permanently, usually accompanied with ruminations about
whether it makes any sense to participate in an organization
that is so completely ineffective in
Hi Eliot,
RFC 3683 gives you broad discretion on the basis to make a
decision, and gives WG chairs broad discretion on what
actions they should take. As you had a hand in it, perhaps
you can refresh my memory,
Just for the record... I was not involved in the publication of RFC 3683.
Hi Frank,
[Posting as an individual and the author of RFC 3934. My views do
not necessarily represent the views of any group, particularly the
IESG or my employer.]
At 3:33 PM +0200 10/6/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
And so far I think that
3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical
Hi Julien,
I think that there is some misunderstanding regarding what is
happening. Harald Alvestrand is not in charge of an IETF PR-action
process, and he has no official role in this process.
Harald is attempting to assemble information that he will use to
propose a PR-action (a Posting
Just for the record...
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/21/05, David Kessens wrote:
Note that the next proposal for an additional area is just around the
corner: the Internet area has a very heavy load of working groups as
well and the next thing that could easily be imagined is a Mobility
Area which also
10:09:07 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not going to comment on the substance of the issues, or the
doc in question, as I haven't been following what is happening with
it, nor have a read a recent version.
But ...
| Based
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/21/05, David Kessens wrote:
I have never seen a senior manager in a commercial enterprise
to whom 26 subordinates, each responsible for completely distinct
disciplines, directly report.
[...]
Most Areas organize themselves in such a way that each AD manages
about half of
Hi Bernard,
I'll start with the process portion of your message and answer the
technical portion in my next note...
At 9:31 PM -0700 9/19/05, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Please remember, though, that most of my note was not meant to
express my own
technical opinion, it was an attempt to
Hi Bernard,
At 9:31 PM -0700 9/19/05, Bernard Aboba wrote:
a. Confusing DNS resolver behavior with the behavior of LLMNR
implementations. The sending of .local queries to the global DNS, while
potentially a serious problem, results from the behavior of existing DNS
resolver implementations.
Hi Bernard,
[BA] Right. Margaret's message was technically wrong on a large number
of points, mischaracterizing mDNS, LLMNR and even DNS.
I would be very interested in understanding what technical errors I
made and I would appreciate if you would share the details with me,
perhaps
Hi All,
As I am sure many of you have noticed, there was extensive discussion
during the IETF Last Call for Link Local Multicast Name Resolution
(LLMNR) specification that is currently available as
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-43.txt. Thanks to all who participated! The
discussion appears to
At 3:55 PM -0700 9/18/05, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
mDNS takes the approach
that local lookups should be distinguishable from global lookups and
accomplishes this through the use of a special local domain (.local).
This claim is one of the bits of misinformation that seems to be spread
about mDNS
Hi Eliot,
At 9:44 AM +0200 9/12/05, Eliot Lear wrote:
Actually, depending on how the solution is developed it certainly CAN
help the problem with the manager being outside a NAT. But we are now
being somewhat loose with terms, so let me be more specific.
I am sorry that I attempted to state
SNMP call home mechanism is
another...? I don't see how the level of change/disruption to the
vendor community is substantially affected by whether these two
separate mechanisms are defined in one IETF working group or two.
Margaret
At 2:52 PM +0200 9/12/05, Eliot Lear wrote:
Margaret
Hi Eliot,
[I am writing as a participant in ISMS and other SNMP-related WGs.
This note is not intended to represent the reasoning that I would use
ot make a decision about the ISMS charter in an IESG context.]
As you know, I disagree with your opinion that call-home
functionality should be
At 12:26 AM +0200 9/7/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I believe that the ISMS WG's proposal is about ADDING the
possibility of SNMP over TCP, not about CHANGING SNMP to use TCP.
UDP will still work.
That is correct. UDP and the current SNMPv3 USM security mechanisms
will still work.
Hi Mike,
At 8:41 AM -0700 9/7/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
In answer to Margaret's question about how it would know
where to call home, it seems to me to be about the same
problem as with traps/informs. I haven't had anything to do
with this wg, but it seems pretty plausible that you'd
initiate
Hi Ken,
The call home solution doesn't help with the problem of the _manager_
being behind a NAT. It only applies to situations where the manager
is at a fixed location on a globally-addressable network and the
managed device is behind a NAT or firewall.
In those cases, the choices would
Hi Eric,
At 12:04 PM -0700 9/7/05, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
At 12:26 AM +0200 9/7/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I believe that the ISMS WG's proposal is about ADDING the
possibility of SNMP over TCP, not about CHANGING SNMP to use TCP.
UDP will still work.
From: Margaret Wasserman
Hi Stuart,
Somehow our discussion has gone awry, and I'm not quite sure why,
because I am not sure that we fundamentally disagree with each other.
At least, I think that we both see some of the same potential
problems, even if we disagree about what steps would be appropriate
to resolve
Hi Brian,
I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand,
mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not.
So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local?
The .local doesn't come from either mDNS or LLMNR... The user types
it and/or an application includes it in
Hi Peter,
At 12:41 PM +0200 8/25/05, Peter Dambier wrote:
Stuart Cheshire wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to
consider the following document:
- 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-42.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG
Hi Stuart,
--On 25. august 2005 10:18 -0700 Stuart Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would go a long way to ease my concerns if the LLMNR specification
stated clearly in its introduction that it's NOT intended to compete with
mDNS, because LLMNR doesn't have any of the functionality that
Hi Stuart,
Although implementaitons are not strictly required for Proposed
Standard publication, I do think that it is interesting to know
whether people have implemented, or intend to implement our standards.
I have received a couple of private confirmations that LLMNR is
implemented in
Hi Stuart,
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be insulting...
We don't typically include statements about how we compete or don't
compete with any non-IETF protocols, including de-facto standards
and/or standards from other standards groups, as that is more of a
marketing discussion than a
Hi Jefsey,
At 11:05 AM +0200 8/18/05, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
I agree with Brian that this procedures does not change the standards
process and/or the official role of the WG chair. In fact, the ideas
People may also want to read RFC 3646 which defines DHCPv6 options to
configure a DNS resolver.
We have considered _other_ ways to automatically configure a DNS
resolver in IPv6, but we haven't managed to reach consensus on any of
those proposals yet.
Margaret
At 9:55 AM +0200 8/15/05,
Hi Iljitsch,
At 3:54 PM +0200 8/15/05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So you have reached consensus on forcing everyone who wants to look
up DNS information over IPv6 transport to use DHCPv6?
As far as I know, nothing that we publish forces anyone to do
anything (or not to do anything).
Hi Larry,
At 12:30 PM -0700 6/25/05, Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts wrote:
I need help as to any process that can mitigate this major conflict
with the TIA/ITU and the IETF and I need to act now. Please send
your thoughts,
I was looking back over this thread, and I just happened to notice
this
Hi,
At 12:53 PM +0700 7/1/05, Robert Elz wrote:
Failing to register whatever parameter they need, because the protocol
proposed is disgusting, even if true, helps absolutely no-one. On
the other hand, if the documentation of what the parameter means, or
how to use it, is inadequate, then
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
