- so what - this is the IETF and there is nothing here mandating
that any protocol work with another.
If GeoPriv breaks RADIUS that is grounds for more standards work right ???
Nice...
Todd Glassey
--
Warning: This message contains information which may be confidential and/or
privileged
I want to point out that the ability and use of DNS to transmit policy
statements is a valuable tool in dealing with certain types of DMA
sponsored emails which many of us wish would go away.
The idea of being able to send a statement of the use rules for a MX
record for instance is a very
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Todd Glassey
[tglas...@certichron.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:30 AM
To: dn...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol)
So SEARS is a method of replacing the DNS roots with a well
So SEARS is a method of replacing the DNS roots with a well-known
service portal providing a Google or other SE based access model. The
session can interface with traditional HTTP or DNS-Lookup Ports to
deliver content or addresses to a browser in the form of a HTTP redirection.
The protocol
On 2/2/2012 3:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Hides the screen, nervous, pays cash... Sounds to me like anyone
surfing pr0n at the Internet Cafe is now a suspected terrorist.z
You should go spend a week in the border towns in Israel before you make
such telling comments like that.
Todd
On
On 2/12/2012 10:12 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi SM,
So isnt the real issue that of informed consent? If you dont know that
someone else has already existing work is it their fault for not telling
the IETF?
If so then there would also need to be some form of process identical to
this for
January 2012 IPR filings.
As to these two new Jan 2012 briefs - the patent application for the
controls which this would tied to was done in December of 2011.
Todd Glassey
--
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
account come with personal
problem with the IETF and that is that
the participants and their sponsors are liable for this damage per these
standards.
Todd Glassey
--
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
account come with personal disclaimers.
Further I OPT OUT of any and all
On 1/27/2012 9:41 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 14:01, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
To support the efficient development of IETF standards and
avoid unnecessary delays, chairs and ADs should look for
opportunities to promote awareness and compliance with the
IETF's IPR
On 1/29/2012 6:34 AM, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM, todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
Today virtually no IETF protocols take into account US or any other
countries copyright laws with regard to Internet based content. Content
like domain names, DNS events
Today virtually no IETF protocols take into account US or any other
countries copyright laws with regard to Internet based content. Content
like domain names, DNS events, and BGP4 routes are also in addition to
the obvious publication events like a websites content, are in fact also
IP impinged.
Folks - FIRST OFF THANKS FOR READING THIS -
I want to propose a new thing here that we as technologists can provide
the world with and that is a uniform method of disclosing the RIGHTS TO
USE status with any Internet based service.
You say what would that pertain to? The answer is that there are
On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Adrian,
At 21:48 25-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Why is Qian Sun still listed on the front page as an author. Wouldn't
it be more
appropriate to move the name to the Acknowledgements section where the
text
could read...
As editorship is a WG Chair
On 1/26/2012 9:15 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Pete,
At 08:08 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who will have
to judge the consensus on this question, my comments will remain
strictly based on the facts of the events as I know them and on the
On 1/20/2012 7:13 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
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,
No actually there isn't such a need Tim. Its one of the problems we face
here in the timekeeping world.
On 1/21/2012 10:53 AM, t.petch wrote:
Alessandro
You could, of course, issue an updated version which simply says that its
predecessor should not have been filed for the reasons you give in the e-mail.
No need to include any other text whatsoever (except, of course, the relevant
boiler
On 1/20/2012 10:13 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Phillip == Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com writes:
Phillip If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we
Phillip need to get rid of the arbitrary correction factors
Phillip introduced by leap seconds.
On 1/5/2012 2:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. As Ray Pelletier said on this list earlier, I have been
tasked with creating a set of requirements for the IETF's remote
participation system (RPS). The first draft is now at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs-00.
On 1/5/2012 6:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 1/4/2012 2:07 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
A protocol is to communications what an algorithm is to computation.
The mantra that I was taught many years ago was that a process is a
program in execution. A program is the instructions. That seems
On 11/15/2011 9:14 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why
are we accepting them ?
Marshall
Because the world has evolved since Office v0 was released unlike the IETF.
PPTX is Office 2007 format and there are formal readers and format
On 10/27/2011 3:04 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden
bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group
rename what it currently calls LISP to something else. To
put it politely, the IETF should be
On 10/28/2011 1:25 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has
implemented Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and
who views Dr. McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic
or disrespectful. And I almost take offense in the claim
of the IETF's relying parties.
As such it is reasonable to put a BURN DATE on any Standards Track
effort which has stalled or stopped dead in its tracks for years.
Todd Glassey
--
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come
with personal disclaimers
Would a general access policy lookup tool protocol be viable here? It
could bolt-on to both DHCP and NEA but seems like the same additions
would be good in both. The same is true with many other protocols.
Especially (from my perspective) those being used in automation and
testimony
to parties publishing
that information as part of their commercial offerings years later after
all of that research is completed...
Sorry but reality is what it is.
Todd Glassey
--
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come
with personal disclaimers
On 8/3/2011 9:40 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 09:35:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the
IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this
list with something like [Discussion] or [IETF]
On 8/2/2011 6:52 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 8/2/11 8:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Either don't have a cutoff at all or make it a requirement that all
materials be submitted in advance of the meeting.
Personally, I think chairs should have the discretion to allow or
disallow discussion
On 7/12/2011 4:03 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
think there is an important message there for the IETF, because the
establishment of consensus is not by any objective measure and this
science says that subjective measures can be influe
The real issue is proving the consensus was reasonable after the
On 5/8/2011 3:06 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation, shall
we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is an IEEE
standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care) "IEEE
Standard for
On 5/8/2011 3:31 PM, todd glassey wrote:
On 5/8/2011 3:06 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation,
shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is an
IEEE standards
as a political PAC or Lobbying
Agency which it clearly has become in direct violation of the NTIA MOU
which gave it (ISOC and its ARIN) the real power.
Todd Glassey
Please have a look at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
Ciao
Hannes
Hannes - this is the issue with the IETF
On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote:
The IETF can only address the technical problems.
This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that you cannot see
technology in isolation.
That's because you are being a political animal
On 2/25/2011 1:34 PM, bill manning wrote:
The IANA function was split?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
Then the IETF will find its world more tightly constrained (as it should
be...).
Todd
--bill
___
Ietf
On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
mailto:o...@cisco.com wrote:
Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
What else is there to discuss in
On 10/20/2010 2:15 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I use telephone numbers, but I don't use a dial pad to dial.
And I strongly suspect that my mode of use is the norm.
Since we are talking about an optimization here, as opposed to a functional
capability, I think it rather more important
This is fine until any of this is done over an encrypted or
byte-manipulated transport and then it will infringe into the Glassey
Patent for which an already existing IPR Notice regarding geoGraphic
Control Codes used in specifying location based services, is on file.
Todd Glassey, IPR Owner
On 9/22/2010 8:53 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 9/21/2010 5:02 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
The list of accepted candidates should be posted on the IETF site like
the
rest of the noncom information.
+1
On the other hand, the practical reality is that getting an IETF login
is easy
enough to
On 9/22/2010 12:28 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
--On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 08:53 -0700 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
...On the other hand, the practical reality is that getting an
IETF login is easy
enough to make this issue pretty minor, IMO.
I have two thoughts on this:
One
On 9/21/2010 1:44 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One of the problems I have seen emerge on many IETF mailing lists is the
habit of fisking.
Please clarify what you mean by fisking.
By fisking I mean responding to a post line by
On 9/21/2010 5:49 AM, todd glassey wrote:
On 9/21/2010 1:44 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One of the problems I have seen emerge on many IETF mailing lists is the
habit of fisking.
Please clarify what you mean by fisking
On 9/13/2010 11:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
There is an interesting discussion thread on the NANOG list na...@nanog.org
under this title that some people on this list might be interested in
following.
Regards
Marshall
Why not simply ask Len Klienrock the answer to this question.
On 9/13/2010 1:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Frankly, I doubt we understood the issues that well back then. Remember, this
I would disagree with that but Vint is still around and obviously with
his partner Al Gore should be able to answer this one, or so one would
think.
Sorry - I grew up at SUAI
was released in this condition and
the damage to the world in the form of wasted effort this causes.
Something that for what its worth provides yet another black-eye for the
IETF (and the parties making GSO and the IETF their career).
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf
properties so this is not a personal but
specifically a business trip.
Does Cisco's legal department condone that Fred?
Todd Glassey
On Aug 24, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Is there a consensus that a tourist visa is sufficient to attend the
IETF from the US?
Thanks,
Andy
and
technology it doesn't own the copyrights to.
Todd Glassey
Same question, can I use the text, but what if the text comes from an e-mail
posted to a list but it is an IRTF list and not an IETF one? RFC5743, on the
IRTF stream, is silent about Contributions; RFC 5378 is verbose, but is
explicit
On 7/25/2010 8:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 25, 2010, at 6:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
The ability of users to sign up from throwaway accounts doesn't
seem to have been a big problem in practice, but it does make it
hard to claim that the lists
and
in a manner which provides a demonstration of how that process is
implemented in the IETF.
Todd Glassey
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
standing waste deep in its own
sh*t.
Sorry folks but reality is what it is and it that is that it's law that
shapes technology not the reverse.
Todd
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 7/21/2010 1:41 PM, Peter DeVries wrote:
Todd, I just read the ruling
On 7/22/2010 7:25 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:56:00PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which
is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as
to whether that ruling would also effect how
On 7/21/2010 8:07 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
todd glassey wrote:
On 7/21/2010 1:02 PM, Dan Schutzer wrote:
Can you briefly explain the relationship of Red Light Camera's to
DNSSEC?
What that means is any and all DNSSEC records operated out of a Root or
lower level system in the state
Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which
is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as
to whether that ruling would also effect how Secure DNS Services are run
and if so what would it do.
The ruling is called California v Khaled and is
ps...
T
Original Message
Subject:Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets
Khaledmandates?
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:09:10 -0700
From: todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net
To: Dan Schutzer dan.schut...@fstc.org
CC: d...@fsround.org
you are referencing.
No that's it.
Peter
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM, todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which
is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as
to whether that ruling would also
Admissible evidence in California v Khaled affects this... I can
tell you -
- the DNSSEC design sucks as an evidentiary source of anything and now
evidence from it is inadmissible per Khaled in California Courts as
'untrustworthy'... it looks like Dean will win this one eh?
Todd Glassey
the interest in providing as much smoke and
mirrors as it takes to say we have a policy so go away...
http://www.google.com/search?q=spoliation+sanctionssourceid=ie7rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBoxie=oe=
and the above search should give you what you need to see this is true...
Todd Glassey
The line
the IETF oversight controls and processes? how about the other
streams?
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
On 7/12/2010 1:19 PM, Chris Elliott wrote:
On Jul 12, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
mailto:ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com
mailto:chell...@pobox.com wrote:
I will suggest that in Beijing we may need to
On 7/12/2010 1:37 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/9/2010 4:32 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The Fair Information Practices are a set of principles most of us are quite
likely to believe in, such as (copied from the Alissa's draft):
Likely, yes. But do any of us know how to
On 7/12/2010 2:52 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 7/12/10 2:34 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
todd glassey wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
Some people seem to hope that creation of a privacy policy is going
to improve things. Personally, I don't think so.
You mean that you think change that will protect
On 7/9/2010 5:15 AM, Hannes Tschenig wrote:
WHAT specifically does Openness and Transparency mean - not in
nebulous namby pamby terms but specific sets of use rules and their
oversight - what exactly does this mean?
as far as i know
o data collection has been done very rarely. and when
.
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
.
Maybe now under the banner of eliminating the need for a formal privacy
policy, this can be reviewed.
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 7/7/2010 8:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Again, wearing no hats.
On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
I think we all agree that having a privacy policy would be desirable,
in the sense that we are in favor of good, and opposed to evil. But I
don't know what it means to
On 7/7/2010 8:53 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/7/2010 8:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Having a privacy policy in place does two primary things IMO. It
helps to
inform and set policy and it gives others a metric to evaluate
performance
and a tool to improve performance.
It also may have
, this is a real issue and it needs to be dealt
with both professionally and in a manner which makes the IETF more
transparent and less of a place where the politics of the day drive the
contract-controls on participation or use of the IETF intellectual
properties.
Todd Glassey
Karen
On 7/5/10 12:05 PM
On 7/6/2010 12:39 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
Doug/Cyrus
How is this unique wrt to what Presence has provided in XML for 4-6
years? A comparison is at least preferable to what already exists for
timezones in XML, IMO.
The other issue is how Jurisdiction is specified inside of a Time Zone,
for
On 7/6/2010 2:45 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2010-07-06 03:56, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5 jul 2010, at 18:05, Alissa Cooper wrote:
1) Respond on this list if you support the idea of the IETF having
a privacy policy (a simple +1 will do).
I'm torn between good to have this written down
On 5/30/2010 3:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
We keep coming back to the same old problem and the same reasons we
are going to hope it solves itself without having to change anything.
1) Its the wrong type of pain
IPv4 exhaustion does cause problems, but not really enough problems or
On 5/25/2010 11:46 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
It's all bit complicated but, yes, anyone can publish copies of RFCs,
including translations into other languages. (See
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.pdffor
latest provisions.)
Patent questions
produces its authority
under) holds no power over things it does not own like TCP for instance.
Todd Glassey
Thanks, Victor
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
attachment
let us not conflate
these two matters.
Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video conference
including streaming also qualify? Seems to me both are reasonable
methods of attending these days.
Todd Glassey
Andrew's right. Sorry for conflating the two. For this specific issue,
I
this is a serious issue.
What that means is like auditors NO email may be excluded from the
history of the vetting process lest the practice be subjected to random
and uncontrolled censorship.
Todd
Joe
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 5/3/2010 11:06 AM
On 5/5/2010 8:05 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
On 05/03/2010 08:21 PM, todd glassey wrote:
These are extensions for Sendmail.
No. Sendmail is just one implementer. There's at least a dozen others.
The problem is that Dean created a
list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF members
On 5/5/2010 11:46 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 5, 2010, at 11:37 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Sending mail to people who clearly don't want it is discourteous and abusive
at best and should not be encouraged in any way, especially by telling the
recipients that they can always filter.
of them independently filed, the FTC
will in fact take action on this abuse.
http://www.ftc.gov/spam
Have a nice day.
Todd Glassey
attachment: tglassey.vcf___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
, May 3, 2010 at 11:28 AM, todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.netwrote:
Folks - I have had it with Dean and his actions in spamming me after
being thrown off of IETF lists.
Mr. Anderson has created a set of IETF mirror lists which he calls
IETF-Honest and which he subscribes IETF members to against
On 5/3/2010 11:06 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
On 05/03/2010 07:48 PM, todd glassey wrote:
Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he
will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
compliant.
I direct your attention to the IETF's standard
On 4/24/2010 2:11 PM, Philip Zimmermann wrote:
David, thank you for reviewing our draft. Your suggestions were helpful.
It was a pleasure talking with you on the phone. I'm glad we had a chance to
discuss the points you raised.
We addressed all the issues you raised in the next draft,
On 4/22/2010 3:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
For what it's worth, there was (Once Upon A Time) a working group called
TCPIMPL (TCP Implementation), that published an don't do it like
this RFC (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2525.txt), that didn't call out
vendor X, but DID provide traces from
a personal opinion but I am betting that the legal
opinion of the Sponsor as to some other party's patent filing is not
something that the Sponsor's are willing to grant to their un-skilled
and non-legally trained technology players here in the IETF.
Todd Glassey
--
Dean Willis
--- Original
On 4/15/2010 1:57 PM, David Morris wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, todd glassey wrote:
Dean - I think the problem is that the individuals in the IETF who
represent their sponsors are generally not licensed patent agents or
attorneys (although there are a couple of exceptions to this last one
meaning that the
IETF also is liable there IMHO.
Just my two cents...
Todd Glassey
--
Dean
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
attachment
On 4/4/2010 5:10 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
It presents a chart showing the proportion of IETF-ers who have bought an
iPad.
Now in theory an iPad could be very useful. Only the application I am
working on (IETF-Roulette) requires Flash.
is the IETF Roulette a method of demonstrating
On 4/5/2010 8:00 AM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 12:05 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:27 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
If the UA is not behind a NAT, the cost of the
On 4/5/2010 9:04 AM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 08:43 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Obviously you could make the expiration interval long, but however
long you make it will be as long as the worst-case config-change time,
in case the Subscription server failed/restarted
On 3/30/2010 9:09 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
On 2010.03.30. 11:41, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll prepare information about all of this as soon as I know the
transition status during the IETF week. And in any event, there are no
early
On 3/27/2010 4:41 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Gregory Lebovitz wrote:
Ray,
I was asked about 5-6 times this week whether you would be selling the
famed IETF74 rock concert style shirt. Of course I enthusiastically
answered Yes! But then they wanted to know when.
On 3/24/2010 8:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 24/Mar/10 09:38, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Because the IETF is about creating Intellectual Properties regarding
networksing. Not a Political Action Committee...
That's the worst definition of the IETF I've ever heard! I don't
believe that, and
On 3/23/2010 10:20 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
The corporate name on my nametag is there only because I filled that field
in the registration form. Others haven't and don't have a corporation name.
When a corporation sends
On 3/23/2010 2:39 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
Greg Daley wrote:
I would actually not encourage IETF to work on such a technology as this,
particularly in the lead-up to IETF Beijing. That would be a serious affront
to our hosts. It is quite important to ensure that the IETF particularly is
On 3/19/2010 3:29 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote:
xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an
RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from.
The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion.
The
On 3/19/2010 1:06 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
SM wrote:
The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
does nobody else find this
and retire their actions so
that they are not allowed to block the IETF's evolution with such
idiotic and self-centered nits
Sorry - but the IETF should have moved into Web Based automated document
submission years ago.
Todd Glassey
Melinda
___
Ietf
On 3/13/2010 3:35 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, March 13, 2010 15:21 -0500 Phillips, Addison
addi...@amazon.com wrote:
This is a prime example of the IETF's waste of time and energy. The ISO
8601 date standard is the obvious answer and yet this convo is still
going...
Todd
On 3/15/2010 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 15.03.2010 17:00, todd glassey wrote:
...
Sorry - but the IETF should have moved into Web Based automated document
submission years ago.
...
It did.
Best regards, Julian
Julian - if this was done properly there would be no need
the little people (those at
the bottom of the social food chain) from those who would prey on them.
Todd Glassey
attachment: tglassey.vcf___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 3/14/2010 9:16 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
An errata is the best way to have this type of change documented. At
least it will be captured for people to consider, and if the document is
ever updated, it will serve as a reminder.
Russ
Isn't this one of the risks with creating standards which
On 3/10/2010 5:04 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
And there was a time when a Request For Comments was intended to be an
informal note, we seem to have made a mess there as well.
What I find sad about the whole identity/authentication area is the
way that we have so many frameworks and
On 3/3/2010 1:20 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
We do not have a host for the IETF 77 meeting in Anaheim. As a direct
result, some of the pleasant amenities that you may have come to expect
will not be available at the IETF 77 meeting. No one will be handing
out T-shirts, and there will not be a
on the current language, the ONLY way the IESG can claim it is not
responsible for damages on IPR is to formally publish everything it
recieves and refusing to do so creates a liability whether the IPR WG
wants to believe it or not.
Todd Glassey
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
