I think this is sensible, could be useful, won’t break anything, and
probably hits a huge 80/20 points for the ways people might want to address
inside spreadsheets. Go ahead and publish it.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:50 AM, The IESG i...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request to
How about a BCP saying conforming implementations of a wide-variety of
security-area RFCs MUST be open-source?
*ducks*
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Sep 6, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
wrote:
Right, because there's
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.orgwrote:
To the rest of the community: Does anyone else think it is not
appropriate to publish CBOR as a Proposed Standard, and see who uses
it?
I have two moderate concerns:
1. I haven’t seen any particularly convincing
by
billions of mobiles today with 2G and 3G networks. So again how is this
more harmful for 4G than the current situation with 2G and 3G if a mobile
device is transferred to a new owner?
Andrew
*From*: Tim Bray [mailto:tb...@textuality.com]
*Sent*: Saturday, July 20, 2013 07:01 PM Central Standard
20, 2013 06:23 AM Central Standard Time
To: S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com
Cc: Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com; ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt
Thanks, SM, for finding what I said back in 2010. I still think this
is architected wrong
, however. -T
Andrew
*From*: Tim Bray [mailto:tb...@textuality.com]
*Sent*: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:58 AM Central Standard Time
*To*: Andrew Allen
*Cc*: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
*Subject*: Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Andrew
Except that for normal usages at the application level, the UUID is
generated by the app and placed in its private per-app storage, which is
always erased on a factory-reset. To Andrew Allen: I strongly recommend
factory-resetting your phone before you sell it, and also factory-resetting
any
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Allen aal...@blackberry.com wrote:
Can it please be explained how the IMEI URN when used as stated in
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid/
Is any more harmful than as the IMEI is used today by over 90% of mobile
on millions of mobile devices which do not have IMEIs, but it’s
quite possible that it’s non-applicable in the context of the draft. -T
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM, John C Klensin j...@jck.com wrote:
--On Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:36 -0700 Tim Bray
tb...@textuality.com wrote:
So if it's
Just wanted to point out that both Apple (for iOS) and Google (for Android)
have strongly discouraged the use of IMEI to identify devices for the
purposes of application software. There are privacy, quality, and
availability issues with their use. Apple has removed the ability of
developers to
at the apps level. -T
That will explain the primary application of this URN which is intended
for use in the 3GPP cellular standards.
Andrew
*From*: Tim Bray [mailto:tb...@textuality.com]
*Sent*: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:02 AM Central Standard Time
*To*: IETF-Discussion Discussion ietf
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:52 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
It would be easier to have the draft discuss the GSMA URN only. The
alternative is to have the draft discuss the privacy considerations of
using IMEI and IMEISV.
Good catch. Assuming this is a good idea (I’m dubious)
personally identifiable information. In particular,
the IMEI URN MUST NOT be included in messages intended to convey any level
of anonymity
covers the privacy issue?
If not what is the additional privacy concern?
Andrew
*From*: Tim Bray [mailto:tb...@textuality.com]
*Sent*: Friday, July
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
1. DRM is a fact of life, and it is therefore better that there should
be a well-formulated standard than a free-for-all. A free-for-all is a
guaranteed route to non-interoperability.
Crack cocaine,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
What you are insisting on defining as a URL is the input to the
process of making a hypertext reference (the arbitrary string typed into
a dialog or placed inside an href/src
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The notion that curl, or an HTTP cache manager, or an XML namespace
processor, is going to be routing around errors, strikes me on the face
of it as being wrong. One of the main uses I put curl to is making sure
I have the
One more data point... I work on Web software all the time and have for
many years; in recent years mostly at the REST (app-to-app HTTP
conversations) rather than browser-wrangling level. I’d have to say that
URI interoperability problems haven’t come near getting into the list of
top-20 pain
Frankfurt as the Minneapolis of Europe: central, well-connected, cold,
unglamorous. -T
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Geoff Mulligan ge...@proto6.com wrote:
On 08/09/2012 09:17 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
offlist.
Not so much
Geoff,
Frankfurt
I gave such a Sunday tutorial at IETF70. The slides are here
(somewhat dated, but still useful I’d say):
http://www.tbray.org/tmp/IETF70.pdf
-Tim
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote:
From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
What surprises me and many
I have not been involved in the OAuth design processes, but for the
last few months, I’ve been a heavy user of production OAuth2 software.
Which I felt gave me a platform to comment on the issue:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2012/07/28/Oauth2-dead
-Tim
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:57
Who are these people? -T
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
I believe it is relevant here since IETF is currently being discussed
in depth on the Internet Governance Caucus mailing list (one of the
biggest forums of the civil society about Internet
Not that voicing opinions on this topic has ever done any good. -T
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Pictures in RFCs?
Come to the RFCFORM BOF to voice opinions on this topic.
Russ
___
Ietf mailing list
+1
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
hat type='AD'/
On 2/21/12 11:10 AM, IESG Secretary wrote:
A modified charter has been submitted for the Hypertext Transfer
Protocol Bis (httpbis) working group in the Applications Area of the
IETF. The IESG has
Your points granted, the feeling of the HTTP-using community is, by
and large, that HTTP security/authz as it stands is “good enough”.
Are you arguing that the security of HTTP 2.0 should be required to be
qualitatively better? If so, someone is going to need to provide some
useful language to
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
How many times do we have to do this before we declare insanity?
I don't care how much risk it adds to the HTTP charter. They are
all just meaningless deadlines anyway. If we want HTTP to have
something other than
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
Seriously, someone needs to propose some charter language or this
discussion is a no-op. -Tim
Proposals for new HTTP authentication schemes are in scope.
+1
I don’t think we’ll get one, but in the unlikely event
[in-line]
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote:
And then should it include adding some new options
or MTI auth schemes as part of HTTP/2.0 or even looking
at that? (I think it ought to include trying for that
personally, even if there is a higher-than-usual
One consequence of your proposal, if adopted, is that there will need
to be a specification of the canonical Internet-time-to-Sidereal-time
function, so that in the long run, the time that your computer says it
is will correspond with what you observe looking out the window. The
Internet will be
I'm increasingly coming to think that *everything* should be done with
TLS unless you can prove it's harmful. Call me paranoid, but given
the general state of the world, secure-by-default seems like the way
to go. -Tim
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:39 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
I should point out that Canada has most of the logistical advantages the usa
enjoys, while imposing quite a bit less visa pain.
- Tim
On Sep 5, 2010 3:39 PM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in
Waikiki. Both the hotel and
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote:
Step-by-step instructions (with illustrations) for Americans to use their
credit cards overseas.
Anyhow, it has to be an iPad app, rather than iPhone/iPod-touch,
because the smaller devices can't display 80-char-66-line
What Iljitsch doesn't say, and should be said, is that Maastricht is a
lovely and charming place in the summer; its central square is one of the
nicer places in Europe to linger over lunch or dinner.
When I went I rented a car in Frankfurt and enjoyed the Autobahn experience.
Not a complicated
If you add up the numbers, about a quarter of a million seriously
Internet-capable mobile devices are being sold every day between
iPhone, Android, and Blackberry. I'd like to illustrate the
experience with some screenshots from such a device - this happens to
be a Nexus One Android, which is a
So you would argue that RFCs should normally be used in paper form? This is
the only way I can see to avoid requiring internet access.
This idea seems sane to me. Given the current policy, the documents are
already not usable on the hundreds of millions of net-capable mobile
devices; a high
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
If we really want to do something in this space first of all we need to agree
on the problem, then on the requirements and THEN we can have a useful
discussion. So far the only thing I hear is assertions offered
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I don't want to enter a discussion about the merits of PDF/A over HTML at
this time.
For the record, if the IETF were to entertain the notion of blessing a
format other than legacy-ASCII, I'd be strongly against any form
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
The existing plaintext ASCII format is easy and univerval. Any more
fancy document formats come with plenty of problems and infinitesimal
close to zero benefit.
ARRRGGH
... which is the only contribution a
If you're proposing OGF you should look at the 6 or 7 other SDOs doing
useful work on clouds, e.g. the DMTF. It's a complex situation.
I would have said ridiculous actually. So much standards energy, so
little shipping technology. -Tim
___
Ietf
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract
language is standard, and required by the government.
It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language
used for meetings by
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of
course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no.
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that. It is an incontrovertible fact
that there are many people who
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held
since 2008 regarding political speech.
Perhaps more material to this discussion, the government has imposed
severe and wide-ranging restrictions on
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with
things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would
have given the host
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John C Klensinjohn-i...@jck.com wrote:
I do not believe that we can reach agreement on even the last
statement.
I am afraid that you may be correct. I am flabbergasted that consensus
on the superior usability of HTML over IETF legacy plain-text (all
other
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Melinda Shoremelinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Right now ascii text is probably the most widely-supported
display format.
This statement is violently counter-intuitive and shouldn't be
accepted unsupported by evidence.
- ASCII is not usable for the languages of a
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Melinda Shoremelinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
You're heading into new territory, here.
No, I disagreed with an unqualified assertion you made using the
extremely well-defined termASCII. As others have pointed out,
progress is being impeded by the conflation of a
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Doug Ewelld...@ewellic.org wrote:
Tim Bray tbray at textuality dot com wrote:
I introduce by example the huge number of mobile
devices that handle HTML effortlessly and IETF legacy ASCII not at all.
Also, the large number of standard office printers
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnumiljit...@muada.com wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently constrained. HTML
allows for the reflowing of text, solving issues with text and screen sizes.
It's also extremely widely implemented, so it's easy to
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Phillip Hallam-Bakerhal...@gmail.com wrote:
The TXT versions do not print on my printer and have not printed
reliably on any printer I have ever owned.
Yes, and that history goes back a couple of decades for me.
I know that some UNIX folk just love to rub
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the
boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and
the abstract moves up to page 1.
Oh, yes please. That would
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
I've heard from a number of the FSF thundering herd people to the effect of
'but the announcement says send email to ietf@ietf.org. (They're
conveniently ignoring the fact that it says the IETF community all over
the
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
From: Alex Loret de Mola edgarver...@gmail.com
However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
opinions known... it is good to know (and see) that so many people are
interested and
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:
RedPhone Security hereby asserts that the techniques for
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
There are several issues with Unicode.
Many of the world's standards organizations, including the IETF to
some degree, have more or less outsourced issues of character
definition and specification to Unicode. Were your writing
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B
for the kernel itself
Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are
worth $3.8762 billion. That kernel-valuation exercise is
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying [X]HTML RFCs are an inherently bad idea, just that
they're not as simple to get right as it might seem.
That's true, but I would expect *less* discussions as compared to just
using PDF (for everything).
Documents in the RFC series normally use only plain-text ASCII
characters and a fixed-width font. However, there is sometimes a
need to supplement the ASCII text with graphics or picture images.
Pardon my reverse-parochialism, but I think the need to be able to
spell editors' and
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:23 PM, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see some fairly significant problems with most of the RFCs in
UTF-8 or equivalent proposals I have seen, many of them having
to do with environments in which UTF-8 is not as ubiquitous as
one might like to believe.
I
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well. There's definitively a total disconnect between that IESG
recommendation, and the W3C TAG's point of view (see ongoing discussion on
the TAG mailing list about the xri scheme).
That discussion is just too long
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The TAG is in fact clearly correct when they state that introduction
of new URI schemes is quite expensive.
To me it seems that this depends on the extent to which those new URI
schemes are to be used in contexts where
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Dusseault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, but there's a contradiction lurking here. You probably
wouldn't bother to use URI syntax unless you expected fairly wide
utilization, or to benefit from the plethora of existing URI-parsing
and -resolving
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's ridiculous.
First of all it's not as if HTTP is an optimal or even particularly
efficient way of accessing all kinds of resources - so you want to
permit URI schemes for as many protocols as can use them.
Well, it's
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM, The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Atom Bidirectional Attribute '
draft-snell-atompub-bidi-06.txt as an Experimental RFC
The name of this draft is a
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:11 AM, IAB Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What Makes For a Successful Protocol?
draft-iab-protocol-success-03
as an informational RFC.Before doing so the IAB wants to solicit from
the community any last comments on this document.
...
The document can
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contrary to that, XML processors do not resolve namespace URIs, they are
purely used as identifiers.
That's certainly how things are supposed to work. It may or may not be how
they
actually work.
I agree with Ned that
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but in case nobody
else has made the point: the bad news is that the Prague taxi-driver
community is (in my personal experience) crooked, while on the other
hand Prague public transit is quite efficient. Last time I was there
I arrived late and
On 2/19/07, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, I would have no problems with Informational or
Experimental publication of this collection -- it is the
proposed decision to standardize that bothers me.
Exactly. Under no circumstances should it ever be OK to use IETF
On 2/14/07, The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/plain Media Type '
draft-wilde-text-fragment-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
Editorial point:
Section 2.2.1
On Jul 15, 2006, at 4:13 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Is it just in my part of the ietf woods, or is this becoming a
widespread
phenomenon? If so, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Over in Atompub, this has become the normal idiom for reacting to
proposals, with common usages such as +/-
On Jun 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding
according to good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things
in the wrong order, like trying to define the protocol before the
problem space is understood)
I'd
On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Carl Malamud wrote:
May I make a suggestion to both the office of the RFC Editor and to
the
IESG? This sounds like a classic case for leadership. How about
starting up a working group? Give it a capable chair, support from
the AD (Brian), and twist some arms
On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Bob Braden wrote:
* Quite true. But as long as the RFC Editor finds it necessary
to use a
* multi-stage process to produce RFCs with hand tweaking of the
output at
* different stages, I doubt that they will be willing to do this
because the
* input
On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
It's true that Unicode font support is somewhat spotty.
It's worse than spotty; it is quite poor.
It's pretty good on modern Mac Windows boxes. When I go to a page
in Devanagari or Chinese or Russian, it usually displays OK.
On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Forcing the input format means one of two things:
- edit source code (argh - back to the stone age)
I think we would generally get better results if Internet Standards
were authored by people who are comfortable editing source code.
On Dec 28, 2005, at 7:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
The 'illegal syntax' is not yet an RFC but is in draft-ietf-
netconf-ssh-05.txt
which says
As the previous example illustrates, a special character
sequence,
, MUST be sent by both the client and the server after
each XML
Why
On Dec 28, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Reserving NUL as a special terminator is a C library-ism. I think
that
history has shown that the use of this kind of mechanism, rather than
explicitly tracking the string's length, was a mistake.
I used to think so too, but I don't any
On Dec 28, 2005, at 5:05 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
That problem is that Unicode is stateful with complex and
indefinitely long term states
Has this ever caused a real problem to a real programmer in real life?
I have written a whole bunch of mission-critical code that reads and
generates
I agree with everything Ned said, this is a non-problem.
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
(Unicode
lacks a no-op, a meaningless octet, one that could be added or
removed without
causing any change to the meaning of the text).
NBSP is used for this purpose.
I think actually
On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
You should admit that ISO 10646 useless for internationalization.
Hogwash.
Which is to say, for the benefit of those who have not had to
internalize the complicated world of standardization and
internationalization: Mr. Ohta's point of
On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
As others have pointed out on this thread, the ASCII art in IETF
specs is (or should be) optional to implementers. The corollary is:
why bother to go to a format that uses something other than ASCII
art, if it is an optional component? Other
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
As Bob said raw UTF-8
characters won't fly with `cat rfc4567 /dev/lpt1` and other
simple uses of RFCs.
1. I wonder what proportion of the population prints things this way?
2. If the file is correctly encoded in UTF-8 and the above doesn't
On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Also, the vast majority of printers in use don't natively support
printing of utf-8, thus forcing users to layer each of their computer
systems with more and more buggy cruft just to do simple tasks like
printing plain text. Perhaps those are
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
the
the ability to read and print UTF-8 in the field is still
significantly
worse than the ability to read and print ASCII.
That assertion could use a little empirical backing. Empirically,
there are people who find the ASCII versions
On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
None of my emails have been abusive.
Speaking as a 99.% passive observer around here, I consider
Dean Anderson's emails, in aggregate, abusive. They consume precious
mental bandwidth, in many cases with no material technical
On Sep 15, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Sure bittorrent is probably not great design by many standards.
For the record, I think bittorrent is a superb design, especially
when seen as a first cut. It will improve. -Tim
___
On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
o 16-bit Unicode matched well with 16-bit wchar_t
wchar_t is 32 bits on all the computers near me. This is one reason
why UTF-16 is irritating for the C programmer.
o while the raw data size doubles in going from 16 bits per character
to 32
On Nov 12, 2004, at 7:51 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Believe me, I know the difference between a big rat and a squirrel
Everybody knows there are lots of rats in Washington, as in any capital
city. -T
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the
IESG
do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the
On Oct 19, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think that the ensuing ietf-isoc-malamud hairball should pay for IPR
searches of all final-drafts
In my experience, such searches, to be of any use, require the services
of an intelligent (i.e. expensive) person, ideally with domain
expertise,
On Aug 10, 2004, at 4:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
The IESG writes (Last Call: 'The APPLICATION/MBOX Media-Type' to
Proposed Standard ):
* Since mbox files are text files (assuming that any binary messages
in the mailbox are themselves encoded) and can be read sensibly
with the naked eye, the
The OS X version doesn't work if you have NeoOffice/J installed,
because it Neo thinks it owns one of the extensions (sdp or something).
So I went to a totally vanilla patched up to date Win/XP box with an
up-to-date Quicktime and Quicktime refused to handle .QT.esm files, so
I downloaded the
On Jul 21, 2004, at 2:48 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What is Canada like in this regard? Seems to me this would be a
perfect compromise for the North American meetings: reasonable
distance for the US attendees, reasonable treatment of foreign
nationals for everyone else (AFAIK).
I noted to
91 matches
Mail list logo
