On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
dcroc...@bbiw.net
From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 51% isn't
enough; it's worth making that explicit.
To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything
that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be
useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/
first. I guess
, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi Arturo.
This BoF, like any other BoF or WG meeting, will have an audio stream and a
jabber room, and comments from the Jabber room will be channeled to the
room microphones.
The BoF chairs (yet to be determined) or the AD MAY request that the
meeting be covered
Hi Arturo.
This BoF, like any other BoF or WG meeting, will have an audio stream and a
jabber room, and comments from the Jabber room will be channeled to the room
microphones.
The BoF chairs (yet to be determined) or the AD MAY request that the meeting be
covered with MeetEcho or WebEx.
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 1:55 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always
On Sep 16, 2013, at 11:31 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right
to claim the ORCID in question (-0001-5882-6823)? The web page
doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used
for authentication.
I
On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:45 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Could be but I have been working through what we know versus what would be
required and I really can't see how a group of people who would let Snowden
On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:26 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
The nit is why is the IETF still using PDT.
Because we don't want to get into a religious war of GMT vs UTC.
On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
But, if the IESG feels an encoding mechanism doesn't need any targeted
use-case to be published as a PS, then please ignore my email for purposes of
consensus. I'm not strongly for/against - just answering
On Aug 10, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.commailto:hal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.commailto:y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan
hadriel.kap...@oracle.commailto:hadriel.kap
On Aug 9, 2013, at 12:21 AM, Jorge Contreras cntre...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you elaborate on why the license makes a difference?
We have been told it would make it easier for people to make and distribute
translations.
--Paul Hoffman
Actually, verbatim translations are already
On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak multiple times at the
mic on one of the RAI
On Aug 4, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
The participation in the IETF is already pseudonymous. I have a driver's
license, a passport, and a national ID card, all proving that my name is
indeed Yoav
On Aug 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were
thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19%
German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said
that about half of that is
the requirements of the
note well acceptance in my view.
Hi Olle
The participation in the IETF is already pseudonymous. I have a driver's
license, a passport, and a national ID card, all proving that my name is indeed
Yoav Nir. But I have never been asked to present any of them at the IETF. I
claim
There's the slight matter of $123.50 in VAT.
To me personally that is minor compared with the much lower price of a flight
to Germany as compared with a flight to the US. But for people working in the
US, there's the more expensive flight, and the more expensive meeting.
Yoav
On Aug 2, 2013,
On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 August 2013 13:04, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There's the slight matter of $123.50 in VAT.
This was such a good meeting, I think that I could justify paying
extra to cover VAT.
I agree, but it's easy
On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
The sum of the amplitude of all hums
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Rooms are set up not to facilitate discussion, but to discourage it. The
lights are dim, the chairs are facing forward rather than other participants,
the
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:23 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
wrote:
I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences,
with poster sessions!
And mandatory suit and tie (or women's equivalent business attire) for
presenters and chairs.
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.
Then I guess it's time for my
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore
On Jul 28, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On Jul 14, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
On 7/13/2013 2:20 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
So finding your site is not that difficult for first-timers. But regardless,
the people who type in addresses or DNS names in full are rare and far
between.
Agreed. Just
On Jul 13, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Try typing out my domain, winserver.com. First timers will not get the
WINSERVER.COM web site, but Microsoft's WIN SERVER 201x and/or WINDOWS SERVER
web sites first.
I did as you suggested earlier, and typed winserver, but
On Jul 12, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't know whether IETF should recommend Deng Hui or Hui Deng
That's the question! :-D
I believe the Chinese participants should reach this
On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a
few megacorporations?
(That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a
On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Hi,
Section 2 says:
RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, Nominating Committee Operation,
Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
last 5 IETF
there.
--
HLS
On 6/24/2013 4:18 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 6/24/13 1:47 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED the same normative requirement level
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 6/24/13 1:47 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED the same normative requirement level, but that it does
not override or change the distinct meanings
On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:07 PM, SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
Hi Aaron,
At 11:40 19-06-2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
Relating to the statement above(I assume Phillip is addressing the US
Academia), not quite sure are we still discussing the same topic?
sorry, I am bit confused .. since IETF is
On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:12 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
On 19/06/13 18:33, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Academia is still one of the worst environments for discrimination.
They don't have formal barriers as in the past but the informal
barriers are steep.
Relating to
On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
To help facilitate the mentoring aspect, there will be a call soon for
volunteers to act as mentors for newcomers (starting with IETF 87). Once the
web page for the mentoring program with all the information is up,
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:38 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Always Europe gets better results because it is the favoriate
meeting-location for ALL
businesses
{{citation needed}}
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel_Citation
(idea taken from http://what-if.xkcd.com/47/ - is this a
On May 29, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/13 3:06 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
The centres for networking industry in Australia are Melbourne and Sydney,
in that order.
It's a bit like IETF 51 being held in Grimsby, not London or Cambridge.
LCD?
Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago, was to
look over the list of areas and working groups ( http://tools.ietf.org/area/ )
and find out which of them are working on something that is of interest to me.
In my case it was mostly the security area, and the
On May 27, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/27/2013 4:13 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago,
One might wish for a document that gives such guidance to folk who are new to
the IETF.
And indeed
I used Expedia to price flights for me on March 2014:
- Buenos Aires: $1401 (21h each way)
- London (where the meeting actually happens): $413 (7h each way. Direct costs
a bit more)
- Vancouver: $1217 (24 h each way? $1288 with a more reasonable 16h)
- Honululu: $1535 (28h each way)
-
On May 22, 2013, at 3:10 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:07 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
...
Although these tests certainly contributed to the good
technical quality of the name servers, they were removed both
for
On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
There is that. But don't forget
On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
appropriate way
On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major
On May 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Scott Brim
scott.b...@gmail.commailto:scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
themselves about the document.
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase
On May 15, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically
authorized in a WG's charter.
- Keith
Why? There's definitely a process failure there, and it should be blamed on the
WG chairs
On May 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 13:23 06-05-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't that is quite right. The problem in this case is not to do
with linguistic quality. It's due to a lack of formal verification
Quoting from the detective story:
At [censored] we
On May 2, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
SM == SM s...@resistor.net writes:
SM There is an open position which has not been filled. Is NomCom
SM 2012 still continuing its work?
SM The IETF usually has a NomCom Chair. Who is the current
Hi Martin,
On Apr 30, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
wrote:
Hi Ted,
On 04/30/2013 01:19 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
So, this page: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html still has TBD
listed for one of the transport ADs. Is there a projected date for
a wg. But still worth documenting as
experimental.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: Yoav Nir [y...@checkpoint.com]
Sent: 19 April 2013 10:02
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: wor...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re
reputation.
On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:23 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
and the point of your ad-hominem argument is what, exactly?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts
From: Yoav Nir [y...@checkpoint.com]
Sent: 18 April
On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Ted Hardie
ted.i...@gmail.commailto:ted.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
Nice post.
I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner circle
- which is
Not entirely true.
It is true that getting management positions (chairs, AD, NomCom) requires
meeting attendance. But a non-attender can get recognition for quality
technical points, and can even progress technical work. RFC 4478 was published
long before I attended my first meeting. My own
attend because I think that makes me more effective. If for any reason I
were no longer able to attend, I think I would still participate meaningfully.
-Original Message-
From: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:l.w...@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Yoav Nir
Cc: wor
On Apr 11, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
All
The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Subject: Re: Proposed solution for DPEP (Diversity Problem Entry Point) -
IETF April 1 jokes. Date: Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:57:54AM -0800 Quoting
Melinda Shore (melinda.sh...@gmail.com):
I am absolutely not
I mostly share the sentiment that this is just humor, so what's the harm.
That said, I did at one point have to exercise my diplomatic skills when I got
forwarded a customer (nameless here for evermore) question about whether
support for RFC 3514 was on our roadmap.
While the people on this
On Apr 7, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Subject: RE: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or
dated?April the first Date: Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:59:30AM + Quoting
Yoav Nir (y...@checkpoint.com):
I mostly share the sentiment
On Apr 7, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote:
Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
Almost every April Fools' Day (1 April) since 1989, the Internet
Engineering Task Force has published one or
I agree that this is not just for the formal leaders. But mentoring is also not
for everyone. I would guess that WG chairs, IAB and IESG members are more
likely to know who would be good mentors for a particular group or area. Eugene
Terrell would not be a good mentor, despite having authored
On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have
working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are
invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can strategically invite a
On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I have been reading the comments in the list and although I am not
making a specific reply to any message I would like to make some comments.
So far I have read I agree we need some diversity or I
Hi, Jari.
On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
wondering what the silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the
On Feb 12, 2013, at 2:57 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Many said to me before as you do RFC don't change, it is already known
in any org that documents don't change when published.
I think the reason this keeps coming up, is that the IETF documents are usually
On Jan 5, 2013, at 6:51 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
So if you don't attend IEEE, quit your whining: at least you won't have
to eat he same hotel food for 2 weeks in a row...
You don't have to eat there. Check out the reviews of this restaurant
across the street:
On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Quick, name five reasons to go to Orlando. Here are mine:
Dave Puerto Rican
Dave delicacies, alternative cinema, craft beer, African-American
Dave
Speaking of the devil in the details…
On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:59 AM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Stephen,
Your goal is laudatory, but the devil will be in the details. For example,
you wrote:
Note also that this experiment just needs an implementation that
makes it
On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
What actual problem is this trying to solve? I see the reference to a
'reward', but wasn't aware that there is a perceived problem needing
incentive to solve.
I think the problem is in the subject line. Documents go
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.
+1
I think Dave is scheduled to be replaced anyway in March, and now they need to
fill two positions: one immediately (Marshal's) and one in March.
The question they're asking is whether they should be considering additional
names now that (a) there's two positions to fill, and (b) one of them
Hi Carlos.
On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Hello,
On 11/16/12 1:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
IETF
On Nov 12, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For WGs that do *not* have a low bar for entry, a detailed complaint to
the chairs and the AD would be very
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:21 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 11/11/12 3:59 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I don't think that thoes Canada and US participants are paying for
the attendance, but their organisations, therefore, are we reducing
the cost of other organisations, or we are interested to
AFAIK it's still Jordi. Anyway, I checked the attendee lists for the last 5
meetings, and didn't see any Carlos Caliente, although given the gmail address,
it's probably a pseudoname.
On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm not quite sure who is the current sergeant-at-arms
Forwarding to the IETF mailing list, which is the proper home for this
discussion.
On Nov 3, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
In Introduction section (1) there is text saying:
--
Bringing these two technologies
On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:25 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use,
While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
recalling someone from one
Since you have his postal address, has anyone notified the police?
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
rules.
Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and
a member
On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
As I noted, if the IETF publishes IDs, why bother with RFCs?
In addition to what Dave said, the target audience of drafts are IETF
participants. The target audience of RFCs varies, but in the usual case it's
implementers. So drafts might have
On Aug 11, 2012, at 9:41 PM, SM wrote:
Here is a rough estimate of users for one content provider:
US 158,758,940
Brazil 54,902,560
India 51,925,180
UK 37,569,580
France 24,345,920
Italy 21,822,640
Canada 17,474,940
Spain 16,075,560
Egypt
On Aug 11, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found
here:
The tourist website www.minneapolis.org uses the slogan City by Nature.
I think An infinitely more glamorous Frankfurt would be an improvement.
.
On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
Minneapolis is infinitely more glamorous Frankfurt ..
-Original Message-
From:
On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
It seems entirely reasonable that there needs to be a version available that's
precisely as-published, for legal (and quasi-legal) reasons, as you say -
however, that's the version produced by the RFC Editor, and not the tools
version (which
On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 14:53 +0300 Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
This means that there would be two documents with the same RFC
number. The quasi-leagal as published one, and the one of
the tools site. Which should I
On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
offlist.
Not so much
Geoff,
Frankfurt is a city in Germany. I believe the IETF has never been there.
Two more tidbits:
- It's a huge aviation hub. There are direct flights from everywhere, similar
to CDG, Heathrow, or Schiphol
- Unlike
Mileage varies.
For me it was the shortest and cheapest flight of any IETF meeting I have
attended.
Yoav
On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
I liked the hotel and prague was wonderful, but it didn't seem easy to get to
cheaply from the US.
Geoff
On Aug 6, 2012, at
On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:29 AM, t.p. wrote:
When I Google RFC, I am sometimes directed to www.ietf.org, which is
not much help here. Other times, I am directed to tools.ietf.org, whose
format I find less friendly but which does have 'errata exist' in the
top right hand corner. However, I
On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: m...@sap.com (Martin Rex)
To me, IPv6 PA prefixes look like a pretty useless feature (from the
customer perspective).
Far be it from me to defend IPv6, but... I don't see the case here.
Our house is pretty typical of the _average_
On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com
For organizations renumbering is more painful, but as long as there's
plenty of time to prepare - it should be manageable. If it's too
painful, there are provider independent addresses, but how many really
On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:35 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
All I changed was the ISP. Why do we call the = thing that's changed
location?
'Location' in the network-centric sense (i.e. 'where in the overall network's
connectivity map you are').
Right.
The location is pretty much irrelevant to the
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:29 PM, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote:
-- I did not find any guidance on how to handle UAs that do not understand
this extension. I don't know if this needs
He meant PILLAR OF SALT
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Barry,
Did you mean bad or BAD?
A
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.orgmailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 12:19 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Just a minor comment on this one:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, SM wrote:
[the] working group at the IETF started with strong web presence. But as
the
work dragged on (and
On Jul 22, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 13:25 -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 21 July 2012 06:55, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
This year Ramadan started yesterday, and ends on August 19. Moving the
meeting one week
On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
I'd support a date change for IETF 95 but it should be the week of the
14th to take into account Palm Sunday and Good Friday. As to Ramadan, I
too would like to understand if there is a need to take this holiday
into account, and what would be
On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 06:07 -0700, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Assuming that the IAOC has set
This creates a distinguished identity, so if two Fei Zhangs attended in Paris
(only case I found in the attendee list), this would distinguish which of them
attended a particular meeting. It would not, however, tie them to an identity
on the mailing list, or to the Fei Zhang who attends the
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm
This line is not too hot either:
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-01
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: 13 June 2012 10:48
To: IETF discussion
To be fair, nearly half the attendees come from that continent. Even when the
meetings are held in Taipei or Paris.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy
Bush
Sent: 10 June 2012 03:33
To: Glen Zorn
Cc: IETF Disgust
Subject: Re:
On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
if i have to delete through much more about this bikeshed, i will give
you some colloquial american to read.
bikeshed ?
:-)
Yoav
Hi Peter
I tend to disagree. I am not a native English speaker, although I will admit to
watching way too much American TV in my teens.
I believe most of these should be recognizable to anyone who has learned enough
English to participate meaningfully in IETF mailing lists and discussions.
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
