Hi,
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 04:26 AM 1/17/2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
timely standards for the Internet.
I think I would state it in these words:
The Internet Engineering Task Force provides a forum for
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, grenville armitage wrote:
I'm not sure I see the ambiguities you assert.
I think this is because you use the narrow interpretation (e.g., the
actual network deployment) of the terms -- which is fine. My problem
with that, though, is that people can have a broad
Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs. (Making Internet Drafts into an
archival series seems like a terrible idea to me, but that is a
different topic.)
I could not
On 18-jan-04, at 19:39, Bob Braden wrote:
So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs.
Sigh. Even more RFCs. Pretty soon we're going to need a 32-bit RFC
number space.
(Making
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:39:51 PST, Bob Braden said:
Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs. (Making Internet Drafts into an
archival series seems like a terrible idea to
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[..]
Actually it's pretty much the same topic, as there needs to be a way to
preserve drafts that are important in some way or another.
If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
IETF and be archived as an RFC. If it (the I-D) doesn't
On 18-jan-04, at 23:17, grenville armitage wrote:
Actually it's pretty much the same topic, as there needs to be a way
to
preserve drafts that are important in some way or another.
If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
IETF and be archived as an RFC.
Really. What's
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-jan-04, at 23:17, grenville armitage wrote:
[.]
If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
IETF and be archived as an RFC.
Really. What's the number for the GSE RFC again? Even current work such
as
At 00:24 18/01/04, Fred Baker wrote:
But it originates with a very real and very damaging operational problem,
that of BSD 4.1's predilection to TCP Silly Window Syndrome and an
operator's desire to minimize the impact of that on competing data traffic.
Dear Fred,
thank you for your inputs. You
Test =)
qxbavnirg
--
Test, yep.
[Filename: wgjpkhbavno.exe, Content-Type: application/x-msdownload]
The attachment file in the message has been removed by eManager.
Bob,
I agree that many works of great value can be found in early RFCs. But
here's my question to you: if the focus is too much on standards, how do
we scale the process so that we can have great works that are NOT
standards? Clearly neither the IESG nor the IETF need be involved in
that
... Another way of looking at this would be to create some sort of
refereed track.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who shall govern the referees?) note that
for a long time, peter salus begged the Computing Systems readership for
articles, and usenix ultimately closed it down due to lack of
- Original Message -
From: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF Mission
Is the standard for Informational currently that onerous?
I'm curious what the average time-to-publish from first
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:13:48 GMT, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
independent (non-series) document, then havn't we achieved gutenberg's goal,
doesn't everybody have their own printing press, and can't we either choose
an existing refereed forum for non-standards work, or just self-publish
14 matches
Mail list logo
