Michael Thomas wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
...The only folks who need to look for supporters are those who
have appealed before and whose appeals have been rejected as
without merit.
Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
Certainly.
A simplistic created-on-the-spot example:
The IETF
(I use the car analogy almost every day in my small computer and network
maintenance company, because most of my customers drive, and they
recognize that as drivers they are responsible for wisely using a
technology that they don't understand.)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The voices that need
Ned Freed wrote:
I would also like to know where to get an equivalent. I use mine
every day and sooner or later it is going to fall apart.
PS. Kudos to the person at Novell responsible for giving out these
bags at IETF 52. I have never worked for Novell, but with such a
solid and feature-rich
Carl Malamud wrote:
The problem with tightly defining which piece of PDF you will support
is that most clients don't give the user choice on what they do. A
user gets a export to PDF button, but they don't get a export to
PDF/A and make sure all fonts are self-contained and don't include
Ken Raeburn wrote:
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.
Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way
of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there
aren't any, after a period of free discussion.
If it's not a
Ken Raeburn wrote:
Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be counted
one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as
no strong opinion. Or should I now start responding to all the Last
Calls with I don't care about this, so please don't count me as
Are you guys taking turns, saying the same thing over and over again?
For the record, I'm not taking sides in any of the current questions
about ASCII/Word/AmiPro/etc, or DKIM, or the other discussions filling
my inbox. I'm trying to come up with a way for the participants in
those
Gray, Eric wrote:
It is useful sometimes to differentiate those who have
no stake in a particular issue from those who are not paying
attention.
(rest of post snipped)
Here I must become two-faced.
Personally, I agree with you. Often, there are many shades
of grey between the
Brian Rosen wrote (about the format issue):
It's probably true that we can push this problem off another year, but maybe
not, and definitely not for very much longer.
I think that everyone here is aware of that, which is why we keep coming
back to it, and will continue to until the agents of
Scott W Brim wrote:
For heuristic value ... Do you think there is a correlation between
restricting ourselves to formats which are good for protocol
specifications but not much else, and the skew in our success record
toward problems solved by protocol specifications as opposed to the
really
Gray, Eric wrote:
It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are
opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants
on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even
strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of
change.
While
Gray, Eric wrote:
Sandy,
In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change
is not the default outcome in most human organizations.
That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion
over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go
with a change as there are
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few
minutes to
hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will
receieve these two emails. Many of the human
(comments inline, but the summary is that _I_ read your words and
apparently get a different meaning from when _you_ read your words)
grenville armitage wrote:
Sandy Wills wrote:
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
A simple
Dean Anderson wrote:
For the time being, I am withholding release of my response pending advice of my
attorney.
As I see it, there are some simple requirements for joining the
IETF. You must be human, or at least a convincing facsimile when using
email. As far as I can tell, Dean meets
(Sorry about this. I sent a private email to Sr. Mendez, in hopes of
explaining to him, in terms that he could understand, that he may have
some misconceptions. Hhe chose to reply on [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding what I say.
To be blunt, I
Adrian Farrel wrote:
And some IETFers have sufficiently long hair that it drapes onto the
screen of people sitting behind them...
I note that Ron Bonica has had his cut for this very reason
Ask him if he noticed it, when it happened.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
Marshall Eubanks wrote (talking about recording IESG meetings):
My experience is that recordings tend to shut some people up...
Jumping in with both feet here:
I have never been to an IETF or IESG meeting, but I have seen
countless examples of this. Marshall is correct.
On the other
Frank Ellermann wrote:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial62.pdf
1.5 MB unreadable with Acrobat Reader 3.0 on an OS/2 system :-(
reads cleanly with Acrobat Reader 7.0 on a WinXP PeeCee, so it's a good
file, but the authors probably (inadvertently) turned the backwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail...
...this implementation is to allow the IETF community to get used
to having these headers in the messages, and allow us to make any
changes to the filtering rules.
This will also allow us to look into
Shelby Moore wrote:
In mailing lists I have observed there are usually a few key guys
who are sort of like the local bullies on the neighborhood street
corner. Their whole purpose in life is stifle any other boy from
coming into the neighborhood and stealing (e.g. giving more
opportunity to)
David J. Aronson wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
Here is last week's presentation.
...
Yes, all 278k of it. TWICE.
The usual accepted way to share large files, is to post them somewhere
on the Web (or at least ftp-able), and send the URL to the list.
Sometimes, it helps to hear a second
James Seng wrote:
bad idea for engineers to play lawyers.
Engineer means someone who takes dreams and makes them real.
Lawyer means someone who takes nightmares and makes them real.
I'd rather have an engineer play lawyer, than have a lawyer play
engineer.
--
: Unable to locate coffee.
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Keith writes:
.and you can tell a lot about me by
watching the temperature sensors at my house
(http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/home_temp.html)
Such as what?
Well, for starters, he lists temperature in both F and C, so he's
probably not an American. In fact,
Mark Durham wrote:
Yes, let's be sure to keep the stockholders uppermost in our prayers.
Don McMorris wrote:
I am from NY state [northern]. I did not lose any people to this
disaster,
but a co-worker of my mother may have lost a brother. My prayers
to those
who have lost people,
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 12:29 PM -0400 9/10/01, Mareline Sheldon wrote:
Similarly there exists RFCs 1149 and 2549 [Avian Carriers] which
nobody will ever implement :-)
1149 has been implemented. See: http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/
By the current rules of the game, RFC 1149 cannot be
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
taking the undefined from the tangential to the irrelevant:
http://www.pancanal.com/eng/photo/jersey-animation.html
Perhaps the USS New Jersey isn't modern.actually, I think a
lot of stuff is designed to panamax
Being able to use our warships in
Johnny Eriksson wrote:
Stephen McHenry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...AND that these are the same people with archaic browsers and
e-mail clients that can't handle recent advances in technology
- even to the point of using "dumb" devices that can only handle
ASCII?
Not everyone considers
28 matches
Mail list logo
