-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Rat Hole Alert [*]
Please stop this discussion.
For those not on namedroppers (skipped from the CC), the full context
of that quote can be found in:
Hi,
At least for me (5-11.11) The Westin Bayshore Resort and Marina web
reservation says that no rooms are available through the direct
reservation link, no matter the preferences. There have been problems
with the web registrations in the past so, .. does anyone have raports
to the
Just had nearly the same experience. Interestingly,
if you book through phone then there IS space but
at a higher rate. I got IETF rate only until the 10th,
but thereafter it was $265.
(Registrations in the web appear to work too, if
you depart on the 10th or earlier.)
--Jari
Pekka Savola
Adding the administrative director (regarding meeting planning) to
Cc:, maybe there is an explanation or a fix..
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jari Arkko wrote:
At least for me (5-11.11) The Westin Bayshore Resort and Marina web
reservation says that no rooms are available through the direct reservation
On the day the hotels came up at IETF.org,
I got a room at the IETF rate, but I had to call.
Regards
Marshall
On Sep 9, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Just had nearly the same experience. Interestingly,
if you book through phone then there IS space but
at a higher rate. I got IETF rate
Pekka Savola wrote:
Just had nearly the same experience. Interestingly,
if you book through phone then there IS space but
at a higher rate. I got IETF rate only until the 10th,
but thereafter it was $265.
(Registrations in the web appear to work too, if
you depart on the 10th or earlier.)
On Sep 9, 2005, at 6:50 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
Just had nearly the same experience. Interestingly,
if you book through phone then there IS space but
at a higher rate. I got IETF rate only until the 10th,
but thereafter it was $265.
(Registrations in the web appear to work
They must have set aside fewer rooms after the end of the meeting.
I'm pretty sure that is the case. Last week I tried to book (via the
Internet) from the 5th until the 12th, but there were no rooms
available on the Friday night. When I emailed the contact at the
hotel, she said she'd just
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree - and I think the IPR WG's mailing list is the right
place to have
the public discussion of that issue.
Unfortunately efforts to write a candidate license have fizzled out
numerous times in the past - partly because it's
In a whimsical mood, I put up a web page that tries to
clarify the comments that I made about complexity during
the Paris IETF Thursday plenary. So, for your bed time
enjoyment:
http://www.tml.tkk.fi/~pnr/FAT/
--Pekka Nikander
___
Ietf mailing
John C Klensin john dash ietf at jck dot com wrote:
The success or failure of the foo registry is
not evaluated on how many foos we can put in to it, or its
comprehensiveness relative to some external foo-list, but on
whether it does the job that the foo-protocol (and maybe foo1,
foo2,
Sorry, Spell Checkers Gone Wild.
So, do you propose that we withdraw the specification of the initial
registry contents, all 963 tags and subtags, and replace it with a set
of instructions to IAN on how they can duplicate our work? And cross
s/IAN/IANA/
our fingers that they get it right,
--On Friday, 09 September, 2005 08:07 -0700 Doug Ewell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C Klensin john dash ietf at jck dot com wrote:
The success or failure of the foo registry is
not evaluated on how many foos we can put in to it, or its
comprehensiveness relative to some external
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Rob Evans wrote:
They must have set aside fewer rooms after the end of the meeting.
I'm pretty sure that is the case. Last week I tried to book (via the
Internet) from the 5th until the 12th, but there were no rooms
available on the Friday night. When I emailed the
John C Klensin john dash ietf at jck dot com wrote:
(i) Internet-Drafts and RFCs are different creatures.
It is perfectly acceptable, indeed common, to have text
in I-Ds that no one intends to see in a final RFC.
Understood. The WG decided that the initial-registry I-D should be an
RFC, for
I just booked saturday-friday checkout at the first hotel, over the
phone, 2 rooms, for ietf, 160CAD excluding taxes.
From past experience hotel web registration is unreliable, better call in.
Alex
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
At least for me (5-11.11) The Westin Bayshore Resort and Marina web
Here's an update. This is what Amy Blackstock,
Reservation Agent at The Westin Bayshore Resort
and Marina told me:
My apologies for the confusion about the rates but
the group is sold for Nov. 11 13th so the higher
rates apply to these days.
(This probably means that you'll have to call,
not
--On Wednesday, 07 September, 2005 12:19 -0700 Addison Phillips
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments on draft-ietf-ltru-registry and
draft-ietf-ltru-initial and, secondarily, on
draft-ietf-ltru-matching...
I've thought a lot about the excellent analysis and comments
in John Klensin's
Pekka Nikander wrote:
In a whimsical mood, I put up a web page that tries to
clarify the comments that I made about complexity during
the Paris IETF Thursday plenary. So, for your bed time
enjoyment:
http://www.tml.tkk.fi/~pnr/FAT/
Pekka this is a outstanding piece of work and I would
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I just booked saturday-friday checkout at the first hotel, over the
phone, 2 rooms, for ietf, 160CAD excluding taxes.
Update: I booked sat-fri (5-11) from the web just now, so someone has
probably done something. Not sure how long those last of
This was quite funny - both of you!
Of course, the first thing to do when you want to lose complexity is Stop
adding to the problem (as in Put down the fork and push away from the
table...).
See you in Vancouver,
Spencer
From: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pekka Nikander [EMAIL
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
I've lost track of the procedures for formally taking exception to ad hominem
attacks, but I think we (the IETF) are overdue in needing to get quite strict
about enforcing that requirement, and doing the enforcement in a timely
fashion.l
I
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
I've lost track of the procedures for formally taking
exception to ad hominem attacks
You have collected the related documents on this page:
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Maybe add 3683 (BCP 83) to the
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
This was quite funny - both of you!
Of course, the first thing to do when you want to lose complexity is
Stop adding to the problem (as in Put down the fork and push away
from the table...).
Oh..darn ..you mean I cant have a Session Border Controller for dessert ?
Before we are too distracted by personal attacks on me**, could we please
consider the issues contained in the forwarded message. I think the first
thing should be to direct the DNSEXT WG Chairs to stimulate discussion of
IPR issues rather than ask it to stop, and for them to get IPR disclosure
John C Klensin wrote:
(i) Internet-Drafts and RFCs are different creatures.
It is perfectly acceptable, indeed common, to have text
in I-Ds that no one intends to see in a final RFC.
I-D not intended to be an RFC was clear, but we missed
the critical text *_in_* an I-D trick / how-to /
Hi John,
Thanks for your note back. First I'll respond to a trivial item and then,
separately, to the STD/BCP question.
You wrote:
(ii)
The idea of using a registry of components (in this case
subtags) that can be mixed and matched at the implementer's
discretion, albeit according to
Stuart Cheshire said:
What's happened is more complicated and more puzzling. Somehow the IETF
process has run out of control, and taken on a life of its own, and taken
us in a direction that makes little sense.
I agree with this, and unfortunately this is not the only instance. In
fact, one
On returning from vacation, I notice that people have been busy on the
IETF discussion list.
In case anyone is interested, here is some information relating to various
assertions made on the list.
Now back the regularly schedule flamewar :)
1. LLMNR has never been implemented
Microsoft has
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John C
Klensin
Aside on the example above (LTRU participants can skip
unless they want to check my logic): en-Hang and
en-Hant would imply writing English in Korean Hangul
or Traditional Chinese
Bernard Aboba wrote:
1. LLMNR has never been implemented
Microsoft has shipped LLMNR support in Windows CE 4.1 and 5.0.
But doesn't that just make it even more odd that they haven't shipped it
for XP? (Given that the API of CE is approximately a subset of that of XP,
so presumably,
John C Klensin scripsit:
(i) The 3066 model requires some process for every tag
that is to be used.
Actually it doesn't; you can combine any of the 400-odd 639-1/639-2
language codes with any of the 200-odd 3166-1 country codes.
The existing opportunities for nonsense are already immense, if
John C Klensin scripsit:
So, all I was suggesting wrt the text of the initial document
is that, when the IESG concluded that it had reached community
consensus, two things should happen:
(1) The IESG instructs IANA to create the registry,
populating it with the elements as
+1
Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John.Cowan
Sent: Friday,
The IESG has received a request from the IP over InfiniBand WG to consider the
following document:
- 'DHCP over InfiniBand '
draft-ietf-ipoib-dhcp-over-infiniband-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
The IESG has received a request from the Bridge MIB WG to consider the
following document:
- 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast
Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions '
draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Host Identity Protocol Architecture '
draft-ietf-hip-arch-03.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret Wasserman and Mark Townsley.
A URL of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Mobile Node Identifier Option for MIPv6 '
draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Mobility for IPv6 Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret Wasserman and Mark Townsley.
A
In its meeting of September 1, 2005, the IESG noted that
the contents of RFC 1818 and RFC 1871 were superseded by
sections 5 and 9 of RFC 2026 respectively.
RFC 1818 (BCP 1) and RFC 1871 (BCP 2) are therefore deemed
to be obsoleted by RFC 2026 (BCP 9) and are reclassified as
Historic.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Identity selection hints for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) '
draft-adrangi-eap-network-discovery-14.txt as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG
40 matches
Mail list logo
