Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
Champake/Sri Lanka
Assitant Director (Information Documentation)
Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
276
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telecom Regulato
ry Commission of Sri Lanka typed:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
we do - we not only have put
Jon Crowcroft wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telecom Regulato
ry Commission of Sri Lanka typed:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions.
the last thing we need is more pro-Microsoft bias in this community.
Telecom Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
I have a better idea. Put the meetings
At 10/19/00 10:19 AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
The last thing I need is more political statements like that.
Stick to engineering here, please.
the question is, what environment are we engineering for? one
which is controlled by Microsoft or one which is platform-agnostic?
when I was on
Keith Moore wrote:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions.
the last thing we need is more pro-Microsoft bias in this community.
I hope that this sentiment won't distract us from what I hope are more
important objectives, one of which presumably is to effectively communicate
with our
Well, last I looked I didn't think that the IETF was "engineering" video
conferencing application products here. I would suspect that we are users
of developed products, and that we should pick the products, perhaps
several, that benefit the largest community that we wish to reach.
I know
Tim Salo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Awaiting a modest proposal to outlaw PowerPoint at IETF meetings...)
What wrong with SliTeX anyway? Other than that the files are too
small compaired to PowerPoint?
(I swear, every time I see that blue fade to black background, I feel
my eyelids start to
I don't know whether NetMeeting is the right answer. But, I am pretty
sure the question ought to be "How can we more effectively communicate
our message?", not "How can we avoid using Microsoft products?"
agree entirely. but in my mind part of communicating effectively
is avoiding the use
[This query received zip response on [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I'll try here]
I recall that at one time there were various thoughts on the table about where
to take HTTP next (e.g. "HTTP next generation") -- i.e. there were various
BOFs held, I-Ds written, and so on.
Larry Masinter noted simply
Is there anything in the IESG governing rules that requires any
physical presence at a particular location in order to accomplish
any IESG tasks?
I think the IETF took a wrong turn when the first PostScript RFC
was published, because that is sort of hard on those blind persons
who might want
At 03:54 PM 10/19/00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any nascent post-HTTP-1.1 efforts *presently* lurking about that
anyone cares to mention? Does anyone have a convenient
I know some folks are talking about blocks, though that could replace a lot
more than HTTP:
http://www.bxxp.org
I know some folks are talking about blocks, though that could replace a
lot
more than HTTP:
http://www.bxxp.org
i don't think so. i think that http is as entrenched as ip tcp, and is
nearly as irreplacable.
the problem, i think, a general lack of clarity as to what http is for.
i'd say
At 06:16 PM 10/19/00 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
I know some folks are talking about blocks, though that could replace a
lot
more than HTTP:
http://www.bxxp.org
i don't think so. i think that http is as entrenched as ip tcp, and is
nearly as irreplacable.
the problem, i think, a general
Mohsen,
Thanks for your pointer:
All of this and a great deal more is discussed in various old books,
such as:
- Internetwork Mobility - The CDPD Approach
Taylor, Waung and Banan
Prentice Hall
1996
ISBN: 0-13-209693-5
I can't find any store that seems to stock your book.
What
Is there anything in the IESG governing rules that requires any
physical presence at a particular location in order to accomplish
any IESG tasks?
I don't know of anything explicit in the rules, but as a practical matter
it is essential that IESG members be present at most IETF meetings.
The
17 matches
Mail list logo
