On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Thanks Bing -
The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
referencing Tim's expired draft.
So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is
mentioned in the acknowledgments as:
On 4/2/2013 2:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just picking a couple of points for further comment:
On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
Hi, Robert
...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
...
The document currently references
the diff at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-port-09
Stig
You raised a few specific questions:
On 11/10/2011 18:36, Stig Venaas wrote:
a few retransmissions would be OK, several seems better.
OK, but isn't it usually 3 or so?
a few retransmissions would be OK, several seems
On 9/27/2011 5:25 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
The IANA considerations in this doc are in error and need updating as
follows. I agree that PORT is a poor acronym choice, FWIW.
Thanks Joe/Tom. I'm changing this per your suggestions.
Stig
Joe
11. IANA Considerations
This specification
On 10/11/2011 10:03 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Thanks Stig - there are a few comments in-line. Note this review is
really for the TSV ADs benefit, so be sure to check with them what needs
to be done. However, I can clarify a few points that probably will help.
Gorry
On 10/10/2011 20:13, Stig
Thanks for the review Gorry, please see below.
On 10/7/2011 4:28 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as a part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors,
On 7/5/2011 2:10 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
I think this draft specifies a very useful protocol, which we have used at our
site and which has been a valuable multicast debugging tool.
The specification and implementations have evolved over maybe 5-6 years or so.
The implementations we've used have
I have now submitted version 04 which I believe addresses the last
call comments. The changes are as follows:
Added the sentence:
The message type is a 4-bit integer with possible values from 0 to 15.
Listing 11-14 as Unassigned.
The references are now all Informational (there was a down
On 1/12/2011 5:25 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
I am writing to provide some review on the draft-ietf-pim-registry,
that is currently in Last Call,
Many thanks for reviewing.
Furstly, this document does not explain the abreviatures once they has
appeared in the title, abstract and
Rémi Després wrote:
Christian Vogt - le (m/j/a) 12/4/08 10:26 AM:
In any case, your comment is useful input, as it shows that calling the
proposed stack architecture in [1] hostname-oriented may be wrong.
Calling it service-name-oriented -- or simply name-oriented -- may
be more
Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
And if you stop thinking IPv6 == IPv4 + big addresses and
start thinking multiple IPv6 addresses including a ULA IPv6
address + RFC 3484 you get local address stability without
needing a NAT. You use ULAs for internal communication and
I've had a quick read through the draft and think I found some issues.
The last one is possibly me just revealing my lack of MIB clue though.
For all definitions using the InetAddress and InetAddressType syntaxes
a size of 4|16 is specified. This is of course only correct for the
former syntax.
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
(sorry if it gets a duplicate)
I'm inclined to believe that dual-stack provider networks are going to
be relatively rare, and may not exist at all. I think it'll either be
WIDE (AS2500) and two of the major ISPs which deploy IPv6 are running
I've read carefully through the draft and have found some issues.
For an ipMcastRouteEntry, how do you specify a non source-specific
entry? Previously this has generally been done using address 0.0.0.0
with mask 255.255.255.255 (AFAIK). Should one use all zeros and prefix
length 32/128? It would
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
[domain suffix]
It is the new-speak for use when all us ancient geeky types
would prefer TLD.
It's what a client might add to it's hostname to form an FQDN. Typically
also used as domain search path by many systems if no explicit search
path is
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 09:19 +0200 Stig Venaas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
[domain suffix]
It is the new-speak for use when all us ancient geeky types
would prefer TLD.
It's what a client might add to it's
hour meetings)
From:Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
cutoff, is maybe look at such
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:35:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That question stymied me, so I just selected No change.
I thought that was clear.
My problem is what herring bone seating layout is. I don't understand
why the question is asked either. Why is it important whether people
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:44:44AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Joerg Ott wrote:
What do other people think?
I think it's a big improvement, I would really like to see this too.
And yes, late session Monday night are really tough when you have
a jet lag.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:18:31PM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Agree, good job. Is working for me since over 10 minutes ago.
Not for me. But interestingly, I've never been able to get an IPv4
address (or any responses) to DHCP queries from dhcpcd-1.3.22_p4 on
Linux on the v4 network.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:18:31PM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Agree, good job. Is working for me since over 10 minutes ago.
Now v6 works for me as well. I think perhaps my initial RS was ignored
for some reason, but I received a later RA. Not sure.
Anyway, I now have working v6 as well,
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 05:32:39PM -0500, Brett Thorson wrote:
Sorry to send this back to this list. But if people are having problems,
I would encourage them (as well as yourself) to come to the NOC (at any
IETF, this one or any future IETF). That way we can ask questions like
What is your
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:18:13AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
[...]
I would have no objection to two full WG sessions on a Friday, but
I can see why most local (US) attendees would want to head off home at
lunchtime (from a US event).
Well, some of us Europeans (and possibly others) may have to
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:15:25PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote:
I have not heard
[...]
I faxed the hotel day after registration opened, and got a fax back
at about the 26th I think, I need to go to office to check details.
One interesting thing though, is that I also got someone elses
Just want to add that the network worked perfectly for me during the
entire IETF, I didn't have any problems at plenary either.
Twice in the lobby bar I lost the association with the access point for
a short while, but apart from that...
I used 802.11b most of the time.
I don't know if I'm
26 matches
Mail list logo
