On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:57:37 -0800
Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
I nominate Bert!
Michel,
I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always been:
I Still Don't Need.
^ ^ ^ ^
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large part
of the Internet is going to continue to be IPv4-only. So, what's the
functional
I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC Support.
The first paragraph of this section says:
Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified
in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the yearly amount (as agreed to in
approved budget) in equal portions.
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 06:55 -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
OK, I'll bite.
Grawl back ;)
Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large part
of the
Michel Py wrote:
I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always been:
I Still Don't Need.
^ ^ ^ ^
Comparisons to past successes or failures are fun, but
not always good indications of future. There are several
reasons behind why something takes or
Harald,
the first look of it seems to be comprehensive and balanced enough. But
there is a problem you will have to address sooner or later which is the
usage (whatever you name the technically competent users) representation.
ISOC is supposed to include it. You can claim that them being
--On 17. november 2004 06:55 -0500 Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large
part of the Internet
--On 17. november 2004 13:45 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
the first look of it seems to be comprehensive and balanced enough. But
there is a problem you will have to address sooner or later which is the
usage (whatever you name the technically competent users)
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The difference has been significant on my end. The advantage of end-to-end
connectivity to/from hosts previously only behind a NAT is remarkable. So
is ALL THE ADDRESS SPACE that I now have available, without extra charges
from the local
Hardly a moral model, I mean look at some of the stuff Bert engages in:
http://bert.secret-wg.org/Kisses/index.html
...and that's the censored stuff.
OK, OK, back to AdminRest or something equally sobering :-)
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
On 14:14 17/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
The IETF standards process is not supposed to be affected by this
reorganization (except, hopefully, by having better support). I agree that
the IETF standards process needs to have participation from users, but
doing so through management of
The second paragraph in this section says:
If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF
share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented
together with the other IASA accounts.
I'm not really sure what this means...
There are some
The second paragraph in this section says:
If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF
share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented
together with the other IASA accounts.
I'm not really sure what this means...
There are some complexities to
Good draft - got it to work quite easily; excelent examples in the draft,
that does help.
However.. ideally one would like the keys to be relatively short (i.e.
ensure it easily fits in the UDP reply; along with other dns info; and in
order to keep calculation times on todays HW resonable).
At 9:14 PM -0800 11/16/04, Michel Py wrote:
And it's not such a big deal to run a big site, apparently:
TorrentBits.org is situated on a dedicated server in the Netherlands.
For the moment we have monthly running costs of approximately ¤ 213.
Another popular music torrent site (not based in the
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 08:11
To: Carl Malamud
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IASA BCP Section 5.3
At 7:40 AM -0800 11/17/04, Carl Malamud wrote:
Might it read better something like
A question for those maintaining the documentÂ…
There is a fair bit of change in section five, regarding IASA funding. In a
nutshell, it now says:
- IETF has three revenue streams:
* IETF meeting fees
* Donations of various kinds designated to the IETF
* ISOC funding
(Sorry if this is a duplicate; I sent an earlier copy from an address that
isn't subscribed to the IETF list. Last I heard it was being held for
moderation.)
Last Call Comments: draft-ietf-simple-filter-format
I have asked the XML Directorate to review this document. These comments
are my own.
Not clear why this doesn't apply to all IETF protocols, not just routing
protocols...
Original Message
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:12:52 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Last Call Comments: draft-ietf-simple-filter-format
I have asked the XML Directorate to review this document. These comments
are my own.
The MIME type described in this document does not appear to have been
submitted to the ietf-types list for review. That should happen before the
IESG
From my read, there are several different aspects.
The description of the sources of funds and the directing of deposits is
probably over-constrained. I would hope that there is not a requirement
specified by these documents for an actual IASA bank account. I doubt that
the document needs to
Thanks for the followup, Fred!
I think the number of changes in chapter 5 reflects quite a bit of
uncertainty about what it should say... we (the IETF community, with ISOC)
should work together on this to make sure it says neither too much nor too
little.
Some specifc points (my opinions):
At 11:04 PM 17/11/2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC Support.
The first paragraph of this section says:
Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified
in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the yearly amount (as
At 08:15 PM 17/11/2004, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:57:37 -0800
Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
section in drafts being reviewed by
25 matches
Mail list logo
