At 02:38 AM 4/9/00 +0100, Martin J.G. Williams wrote:
As far as i'm concerned (IMHO) if the standards bodies were to be driven
by the
vendors, then they would become no more
than sanitised purveyors of de facto standards, and je jure standards would be
relegated to being nothing more than
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as "Request
For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to find
ways to better distinguish between the Standards track and other documents.
g'day,
Tripp Lilley wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
readily accessible. I still see value in having documents come out as "Request
For Comments" in the traditional sense, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to find
ways to better distinguish between the
At 10:33 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Fred Baker wrote:
wrestled to the appearance of support as standards. We're all aware of
cases where something was poublished as informational, experimental, etc,
and the next press release announced support of that "standard", and of
cases where RFCs, like IP on
On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:01:38 PDT, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
At 10:33 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Fred Baker wrote:
cases where RFCs, like IP on Avian Carriers, started winding up on RFPs
simply because it was an RFC, and therefore "must" be the standard. This
is another case of meaning
At 16:09 09-04-00 , Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
Well put. As Dave has pointed out earlier this weekend, there is a burning need
for better, permanent access to the Drafts collection. If we had that, perhaps
much of this discussion might become moot, since some of the out-on-a-limb
RJ Atkinson wrote:
While the folks in this discussion might
disagree on which drafts fall in that category, everyone believes that at least
some documents ought not be published in an IETF-related archival document series.
Mmm...I think the patent thread pointed out that, if we archived all
The I-D in question has been referred to an existing IETF WG for review,
that assertion was made, but not confirmed by the ADs.
is it really true? it seems odd because it really isn't in scope for wrec.
Keith
At 10:39 AM 10/04/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
The I-D in question has been referred to an existing IETF WG for review,
that assertion was made, but not confirmed by the ADs.
is it really true? it seems odd because it really isn't in scope for wrec.
Let me jog your memory:
At 06:29 PM
On 4/8/00 at 5:40 PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
document not relevant.
I'm not
At 12:54 09.04.2000 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
You need to go back and read the message to which you are responding
again. Technical merit is specifically *not* a factor in deciding
publication of an Experimental or Informational document.
For those who believe this, please check out the
On 4/9/00 at 8:21 PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
For those who believe this, please check out the technical merit of
draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-05.txt, and ask
yourselves if this should be published as an RFC.
It should not. See my message to Vernon. But it's
For those who believe this, please check out the technical merit of
draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-05.txt, and ask
yourselves if this should be published as an RFC.
It should not. See my message to Vernon. But it's not because it
lacks technical merit that it shouldn't
From: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...He suggested that we allow them to document current practice.
Do I understand correctly that you think that
draft-terrell-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-addr-cls-02.txt
should have been published as an RFC?
Uh, no. I see no deployed support for this document
On 4/9/00 at 2:06 PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uh, no. I see no deployed support for this document and therefore see
no relevance to the Internet community to have this document
published. If noone on the Internet is doing it and I'm
g'day,
Dave Crocker wrote:
. . .
It strikes me that it would be much, much more productive to fire up a
working group focused on this topic, since we have known of the application
level need for about 12 years, if not longer.
Which raises the interesting question as to what the
At 03:35 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
Which raises the interesting question as to what the participants would
hope to
be the outcome of such a working group and whether we could possibly move
towards something ressembling a technical consensus, given the current
On 4/9/00 at 12:39 PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]the RFC Editor exercises editorial control over the RFC series,
but doesn't specify exactly what editorial control means.
Actually, Harald's quote from 2026 does make it pretty clear:
Section 4.2.3:
The RFC Editor
is
At 03:51 PM 4/8/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
If the IETF engages in routine non-acceptance of "informational" documents
on the basis of non-technical concerns the IETF will, I believe, lose its
clear and loud voice when that voice is most needed to be heard.
That's a valid concern. The
At 05:06 PM 4/8/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Publication under Informational and Experimental has typically been
open to all wishing it.
uh, no. this is a common myth, but it's not true, and hasn't been
true for many years.
First, let's be clear that your statement includes a
One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
document not relevant.
I'm not hard-pressed to do this at all. In fact I find it
I'd like note my agreement with to the comments made by Dave Crocker.
And I would like to suggest that there is perhaps yet another aspect of
this debate:
The IETF recently made a strong moral statement against CALEA. That
statement carried weight; it was noticed; it had impact.
And that
g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
document not relevant.
I'm not hard-pressed
23 matches
Mail list logo
