) the character in question is listed in ISO-8859-1 as NBSP
c) consequently displayed a NBSP for me.
If your mail reader displayed something else, it is either misconfigured
or broken. Please do not use your misconfiguration or broken software as
an argument why using a beyond-ASCII character set
Hi,
As usual, the discussion of ASCII plain text versus beyond-ASCII
plain text has been mixed up with the essentially unrelated
discussion of plain text versus another format.
+1
Stefan
Martin Rex mrex at sap dot com wrote:
Unicode characters are also a Royal PITA in specs, because
-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of John C Klensin
Sent: Sun 3/1/2009 10:12 PM
To: Patrik Fältström; Dave CROCKER
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; ietf@ietf.org; Lynn St. Amour; dai...@isoc.org
Subject: Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management Board: Why?
Patrik,
I fear that I need to side
So at this point the rule in the identity space is safety in numbers. The
major waring factions are now spending considerable
time and effort to show that the war is over and there is going to be a
concerted joint effort. Thus ISOC joining liberty does not represent the
IETF taking sides in a
On Mar 1, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:59:00 +0200,
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management space is
not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for
example, come up
with the question why ISOC did
On 1 mrt 2009, at 23:49, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
PS. Re: your side note below on the makeup of the ISOC Board, we'll
update the list to show the community or mechanism that appoints/
elects Trustees. In the meantime, the IETF appoints 3 Trustees
(out of 13, 12 voting and me non-voting).
Hannes,
Two mostly rhetorical questions...
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example, come up
with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium (see
Hi Joel,
Hannes,
Two mostly rhetorical questions...
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management
space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example,
come up with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Joel,
Hannes,
Two mostly rhetorical questions...
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management
space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example,
come up with the question why ISOC did
folks are very engaged
with IETF participants.
Is the IETF the right
place to do this work?
[By 'this' I assume you mean 'work on IdM']
I wonder why you think that the work on identity management could not
something the IETF should we focusing on?
It could be, but it isn't. We have had
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I would like to hear a bit more background about these activities, see
https://www.projectliberty.org/news_events/press_releases/internet_society_j
oins_liberty_alliance_management_board
Hannes -
ISOC hat on
As stated in the press release, ISOC
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example, come up
with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium (see
http://www.kerberos.org/), as Kerberos is a technology developed within
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Someone could, for example, come up
with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium (see
http://www.kerberos.org/), as Kerberos is a technology developed within the
IETF, or to support technologies like OpenID, OAuth, etc. that are closer
and groups. Someone could, for example,
come up
with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium
(see
http://www.kerberos.org/), as Kerberos is a technology developed
within the
IETF, or to support technologies like OpenID, OAuth, etc. that are
closer to
the Internet
Dave,
On 2009-03-02 07:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
What is particularly interesting to me, about this line of comment, is
not whether the relevant IETF-based technologies are superior or whether
Can you point me to the IETF WG(s) that are considering identity
management as a whole? I know
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2009-03-02 07:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
What is particularly interesting to me, about this line of comment, is
not whether the relevant IETF-based technologies are superior or whether
Can you point me to the IETF WG(s) that are considering identity
On 2009-03-02 10:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2009-03-02 07:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
What is particularly interesting to me, about this line of comment, is
not whether the relevant IETF-based technologies are superior or whether
Can you point me to the
Brian
Taking a loose view of the OSI 7 layer stack for a moment - is there
any group that's looking at more than 3 layers?
Identity, as you know, can be at layer2 for link access sign on (the
IEEE is addressing this area).
There's identity associated to an IP address.
There's identity
On 1 mar 2009, at 22.21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
In any event, if it something ISOC considers worth making a
strategic relationship about, and it is likely to entail Internet
technical standards, then it would be strange to have the IETF skip
dealing with it.
As Lycy said, we in ISOC BoT do
Patrik Fältström wrote:
So I do not think IETF should be the slightest worried ISOC is doing
something here without coordination. And without visibility to the IETF.
I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't expressing worry. I was noting
that the activity wasn't discussed with the
snip
So I do not think IETF should be the slightest worried ISOC is doing
something here without coordination. And without visibility to the IETF.
And the more people in IETF is interested on this more meta-level-work
than bits on the wire, the higher the quality will be of the work ISOC
My concern regarding this announcement is the fact that it gives support to a
misguided effort by Liberty Alliance. I think it is somewhat irresponsible for
the ISOC to actively support an effort without first engaging the community at
large to fully understand the dynamics of the identity
On 2 mar 2009, at 04.12, John C Klensin wrote:
I am not suggesting trying to undo this decision, but believe
that, as ISOC adds sufficient technically-qualified staff to
engage in activities like this on its own, we need to work,
collectively, on better ways to facilitate communication in a
I would like to hear a bit more background about these activities, see
https://www.projectliberty.org/news_events/press_releases/internet_society_j
oins_liberty_alliance_management_board
Thanks!
Ciao
Hannes
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I would like to hear a bit more background about these activities, see
https://www.projectliberty.org/news_events/press_releases/internet_society_j
oins_liberty_alliance_management_board
Hannes, that is a very good question. I look forward to clarification
from the
joins Liberty Alliance Management Board: Why?
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I would like to hear a bit more background about these activities, see
https://www.projectliberty.org/news_events/press_releases/internet_society_j
oins_liberty_alliance_management_board
Hannes, that is a very good
patent
claims. They may be as bogus as the hundreds of other patent infringement
claims that companies receive letters about every day. OTOH, they may be
deadly submarines ready to attack us all.
Why don't we organize to answer the patent claim infringement issues like
professionals do? Ask technical
to attack us all.
Why don't we organize to answer the patent claim infringement issues
like professionals do? Ask technical experts. Consult a patent
attorney. Render expert opinions.
Absolutely -- that's everyone's right, privilege, and (arguably) duty.
I haven't looked at it myself because I
the disadvantages.
An effective critique of that judgement _does not_ mean just saying
'encumbered technology is bad', because most of us already agree with that
general statement. One would have to understand the details of why they felt
that that the advantages of using this particular encumbered
just saying
'encumbered technology is bad', because most of us already agree
with that
general statement. One would have to understand the details of why
they felt
that that the advantages of using this particular encumbered solution
outweighed the obvious disadvantages, and show where
Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm not sure I'd really believe any determination short of a court's
anyway -
attorneys can advise, but until the proverbial butcher-baker-
candlestickmaker
get their say after a trial, it's got an element of coin-toss to it, no?
I respond only to this specific point.
Hi Steve,
On 2009-02-11 08:19, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:59:52 -0800
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Why don't we organize to answer the patent claim infringement issues
like professionals do? Ask technical experts. Consult a patent
attorney. Render
Nothing personal, but you could hardly ask for a better
illustration.
For one thing, this isn't a case of broken DNSBLs, it's a case of
getting what you asked for.
Rather than using shared DNSBLs, this tiny host on a non-profit public
access network is desperately trying to run its own spam
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Why Authentication Data suboption is needed for MIP6 '
draft-ietf-mip6-whyauthdataoption-07.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Mobility for IPv6 Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark
Hi All,
I have a query in the draft Managed Objects for ATM over
Packet Switched Network (draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-atm-mib-05.txt) that why
there are seperate tables for Inbound (pwAtmInboundNto1Table) and
Outbound (pwAtmOutboundNto1Table). Is there any specific reason to
have this, please let me
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le Monday 01 October 2007 20:50:00 ext Sam Hartman, vous avez écrit :
Hi. I opened a ticket with the secretariat a few weeks ago
complaining that I cannot reach www.ietf.org using a teredo address
either allocated through the Microsoft Teredo server or the Debian
On 1-okt-2007, at 19:50, Sam Hartman wrote:
This is annoying because glibc's source address selection algorithm
seems to prefer teredo addresses to v4 addresses. So, I get really
bad response times to www.ietf.org when using teredo.
It would help if vendors implemented the RFC 3484 policy
Le Monday 01 October 2007 20:50:00 ext Sam Hartman, vous avez écrit:
Hi. I opened a ticket with the secretariat a few weeks ago
complaining that I cannot reach www.ietf.org using a teredo address
either allocated through the Microsoft Teredo server or the Debian
teredo server.
This
Hi. I opened a ticket with the secretariat a few weeks ago
complaining that I cannot reach www.ietf.org using a teredo address
either allocated through the Microsoft Teredo server or the Debian
teredo server.
This is annoying because glibc's source address selection algorithm
seems to prefer
I can work on that.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
Para: ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Would someone help the secretariat figure out why they cannot route to
teredo addresses?
Hi. I opened
, 2007 12:20 PM
To: Paul Vixie
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:47:46 +
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/802_11n_patent_threat/,
we see:
Letters of Assurance
Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott Brim responded:
I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg.
I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask that we
NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its charter is
revised to allow it to
Chris Elliott wrote:
You mean like:
Cisco is the owner of US published patent applications 20050154872 and
20050154873 and one or more pending unpublished patent applications
relating to the subject matter of Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Session Resumption without Server Side State
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700
Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask
that we NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its
charter is revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR
policies with
On 26 Sep 2007 at 14:06 +0200, Harald Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
Note that if:
- Company A has a patent on nanosecond gate opening
- Company A has issued the claim above, in conjunction with an IETF
standard
- Company B has a patent on the application of slow-drying oil paint
-
On 2007-09-27 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
At 10:02 AM +0200 9/26/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hear, hear. I believe a significant part of the IETF community would
agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would
be very useful for the IETF community as well. When I
good evening ,
there was an intersting statement a while ago in the apple streaming
list that i like to share:
---
If you use a technique covered by a patent for your own, private
use, you are not obliged to pay royalty fees.
-- if you compile sources and build an executable you can then
won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ...
i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like it?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
be applicable to any IEEE
standard. Basically they state that the patent owner
won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ...
i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like it?
___
Ietf mailing
they state that the patent owner
won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ...
i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like it?
May I point you to the IPR mailing list, where discussions of this nature
are in scope? [EMAIL PROTECTED], usual protocol
Why would you believe that a representation in the press on an issue as
complex as this is at all accurate?
That quote is not a correct or complete description of IEEE LoAs. First
off, the IEEE-SA can request all it wants but has no power to require
anything of parties who are not part
parties
holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE
standard. Basically they state that the patent owner
won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ...
i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like
You mean like:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/
no, i was thinking of the promise not to sue, rather than the promise to
disclose the possibility of suing.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ...
i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like it?
Perhaps because IEEE hasn't got anything like that, either?
The IEEE has got a very expansive patent policy:
| 7.14 Patent Rights of Employed Engineer
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
You mean like:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/
no, i was thinking of the promise not to sue, rather than the promise to
disclose the possibility of suing.
You mean like:
Cisco is the owner of US published patent applications 20050154872 and
no, i was thinking of the promise not to sue, rather than the promise to
disclose the possibility of suing.
You mean like:
...
If technology in this document is included in a standard adopted by IETF
and any claims of any Cisco patents are necessary for practicing the
standard, any
On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
I don't think it's fundamentally different from the IETF policy (that
is, RAND is acceptable).
Actually, per RFC 3978 and friends, the IETF does not even require a
RAND commitment. There have recently been cases where RFCs have
owner
won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ...
i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like it?
Actually, this is a mistatement of what is in an IEEE letter of
assurance. Check out the text here; it looks quite similar to an IETF IPR
declaration
standard. Basically they state that the patent owner
won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ...
i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like
it?
Because the strong consensus of the IPR WG a few years ago was to keep
the current policy. As Ted
On 25 Sep 2007 at 18:40 +, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote:
very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of
questions rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the
question, what is the objective definition of reasonable and
nondiscriminatory?
The more a disclosure
* Paul Vixie:
very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of questions
rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the question, what is the
objective definition of reasonable and nondiscriminatory?
Any terms that prevent courts from granting compulsory patent licenses
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[let me whine again about this one more time... *sigh*]
[guilty parties in cc + public ml's so that every body sees again that
this is being sent to you so that you can't deny it... *sigh again*]
Actually appreciated, as the only sessions with 3ffe
The IPv6 connectivity problems, at least the ones that I and some
others encountered, where resolved yesterday.
Thanks to all the folks involved who made that happen!
Mike Leber wrote:
[..]
Would you similarly disconnect a nonresponsive customer because they used
a /30 from RFC1918 space on a
Steve Powell wrote:
Greetings.
Thanks for the quick response. That is always appreciated.
Some networks don't even take that decency to respond, and for the
record, those are the ones that the previous mail is targeted at, in
the hope that they at least maybe acknowledge that there is a problem
Greetings. I do not believe 6bone space has anything
to do with it. 3ffe:80a::/64 is still being used by
PAIX in Palo Alto. However, we should be filtering
6bone space. So were only using it until all peers are
moved off of 6bone space. Unfortunately, moving those
peers and getting rid of
I think what's going on is that packets from www.ietf.org don't make it
back to my ISP. A ping6 or traceroute6 doesn't show any ICMP errors and
TCP sessions don't connect so it's not a PMTUD problem. So it's an
actual timeout.
I also just started noticing this, that is, that it does not
And what do we see: 6bone space and still in use.
As a lot of places correctly filter it out, the PMTU's get dropped, as
they are supposed to be dropped.
The whois.6bone.net registry is fun of course:
inet6num: 3FFE:800::/24
netname: ISI-LAP
descr:Harry Try IPv6
At 11:18 PM 11/8/2006 -0800, Ross Finlayson wrote:
I'm curious: Why are we still seeing new Internet-Draft annnouncements
(posted on the i-d-announce@ietf.org mailing list) this week? I thought
that there were supposed to be no new Internet-Draft announcements from 1
week prior to each IETF
I'm curious: Why are we still seeing new Internet-Draft
annnouncements (posted on the i-d-announce@ietf.org mailing list)
this week? I thought that there were supposed to be no new
Internet-Draft announcements from 1 week prior to each IETF meeting,
until after the end of the meeting
On Nov 8, 2006, at 11:18 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
I'm curious: Why are we still seeing new Internet-Draft
annnouncements (posted on the i-d-announce@ietf.org mailing list)
this week? I thought that there were supposed to be no new
Internet-Draft announcements from 1 week prior to each
In regards to: '3 standards a year' remark?
Please see 'these remarks' on;
'San Francisco Digital Inclusion Strategy'
http://leftinsf.com/blog/index/php/archives/1174
And my remark is why not a 'standard'...for Three Years? (PROTO-TYPE)
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hallam
--On Wednesday, 20 September, 2006 08:23 -0400 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer remembered:
My understanding (as author of three of the proposals) was
that for most of the time newtrk was in existence, the
working group's attention was focused on ISDs as a way of
avoiding
On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:08 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Having seen the consequences of one-step standards processes,
especially in environments in which the standards designers are not
very closely tied to products that are shipping or ready to ship, I
remain strongly committed to a standards
Fred,
you talk about interoperability between vendors, this is good. Let
not forget interoperability with users, i.e. our own IETF document
interoperability with the external standard we leverage and the user
demand. Waiting for industrial products not to excite the public is
too long and
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For what it is worth my takehome from the Montreal meeting was that there was
genuine desire for change but no recognition of consensus on a particular way
forward.
One of the reasons that there is no recognition of consensus on a way forward
is that we did not
a specification has
demonstrated that it is not useful...any more.)
What we need is a more immediate basis for assessing current
utility of recent IETF work.
That's why I keep suggesting that we set a time-limit for
deployment and use of Proposed specifications. Those failing to
garner
a working group
consensus document, it should be more clear. It should say one of the
following:
1. The IESG disagrees with this document in its entirety and refuses
to advance it, and here's why; or
2. The IESG disagrees with part of this document and refuses to
advance it, here's
I garbled:
To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
My apologies in advance for posting in this thread.
There was, to recall history, no consensus in newtrk for any particular
choice among the various options for simplifying the 3 stage process.
So the IESG never saw or responded to any proposal in that area.
My understanding (as author of
Eliot Lear wrote:
I garbled:
To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Well, there wasn't likely to be a blank check promise to advance
a draft, was there?
Brian,
But I think there is a message here - badly phrased perhaps - that
running code is needed for such proposals to be thoroughly considered.
Suppose there was a proposal that all RFCs should be sourced as XML
files. We have a lot of running code to measure that proposal against.
Douglas
At 11:17 20/09/2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
Well, I think there's a lot of confusion between the statement We,
as engineers trying to maintain our scientific integrity as a whole,
consider this specification a good thing and recommend it, and We,
as disinterested engineers trying to be
Jefsey == Jefsey Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the following is a good summary of our quandary.
Jefsey At 11:17 20/09/2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
Well, I think there's a lot of confusion between the statement We,
as engineers trying to maintain our scientific integrity
On 9/19/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thankfully, the complete failure known as HTTP 1.1 would never make it
to Proposed Standard under the unwritten process we have now. For
example, it doesn't contain a mandatory, universally interoperable
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle and align
theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm sorry, Brian, but this
I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people
were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of
resources and in the end accomplish nothing.
One way to ensure that there are no such discussions is to make all such
discussions fruitless and
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people
were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of
resources and in the end accomplish nothing.
Henning and Brian,
I think you are confusing accomplish nothing with produces a
- or it takes being on the
inside track in dominant (or early) implementation.
One of the reasons why it _looks_ like the Internet mainly
runs on Proposed Standards, is that the people who know about the
difference between what's technically done, and what's technically
documented, have no real
: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process]
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp
the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community
consensus to spend
effort
Henning == Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning For this particular case, I don't think there is a
Henning scientifically provable right answer, so a reasonable
Henning approach is to pick a number (1 or 2 or 3 steps) that
Henning most active participants
that it is not useful...any more.)
What we need is a more immediate basis for assessing current utility of
recent IETF work.
That's why I keep suggesting that we set a time-limit for deployment and
use of Proposed specifications. Those failing to garner the necessary
community support automatically go
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants that
produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed Standards,
so the appropriate
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active
participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed
At 09:09 18/09/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active
participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs
On 9/18/06, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not done the work to review velocity from -00 to RFC, but perhaps
Bill Fenner has.
I haven't; I've been concentrating on the IESG part of the document lifecycle.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:16:11AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
For instance - would Harald H ever let me run an initiative through IPR? -
not a chance and his refusal to allow me to file my drafts under his WG is a
violation of the IETF charter, and tortuous interference by he and the IESG
to
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
[..]
Campaigns can be a pain, but they do have positive attributes. People
who have to campaign for a position are forced to think about the
contribution they intend to make, they have to set out a program of
action, they have to communicate it to the
On 9/18/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's see - HTTP/1.1 was published as Proposed Standard in
January 1997, and draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt was posted
in November 1995.
The first drafts of the spec were
301 - 400 of 941 matches
Mail list logo
