Well I was one satisfied customer :-)
---In other news--
(Think Red Cross, don't think Power Company)
I had six people come up to me on Thursday to let me know
that their wireless
connection was acceptable (they used words like great, and no
problems). I
hope that more
Pekka,
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
Yes to both.
As a meaningless response, I could just say - it's a good idea. And it is
possible
If you use LDP, it is NOT a routing protocol. The specific mode of use
(targeted LDP) is already described in RFC 3036. The FECs are
different, but
the FEC TLV was defined in such a way as to be extensible.
And when you want to do this inter-domain? Everything else seems to
have
Paul,
At 10:15 AM +0200 6/18/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
- some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
- we're too stupid to get it
Melinda,
As a process kind of thing, I'm also concerned about the
growth of the temporary sub-IP area, so I think there are
issues here with both the work itself and in how the IETF
goes about taking on and structuring its work.
And proposals have been made to dismantle the SUBIP area and
Paul,
At 1:31 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote:
I'm not sure how to argue with the statement the IETF has done a
horrible job with a similar working group, so we want our working
group in the IETF.
Well, how about, we can't agree on IPv6 numbering schemes, so let's find another
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the CALSCH WG
decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.
You might not think that's a fair analogy,
Here's my personal opinion.
I think we have two suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers :-)
I think the area's WGs need ADs who have been close enough to keep the
continuity of relations with other standards bodies, the past work, etc.
Regarding whether there is a need for an area long-term, it would depend on
the sub-ip area
At 11:15 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the
CALSCH WG decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore
the fact that the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in
getting
And is that because members of the larger community were not allowed to
participate in those WGs whose decisions adversely impacted their interests?
Because, by your assertion, if they had participated, they would have been part
of making the WG decision, which would therefore not have been in the
10 matches
Mail list logo
