Material comments:
- Section 3: RFC 5378 expected the date on which 5378 was effective to
be set by the Trust (section 2.1), and explicitly did not want to cast
into RFC stone the procedure by which the changeover date was determined.
- I disagree with the decision to allow *all* of a
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Hi.
In an attempt to get this discussion unstuck and to provide a
way forward for those of us whose reading of 5378 (or advice
from counsel) have convinced us that we cannot post most
documents that contain older text written by others under the
new
Two points
1) Let us bury the idea that more parts reduces reliability. If anyone thinks
that they do not understand the function of TCP and should go and read some
basic networking architecture texts. TCP + IP is more reliable than IP. Ergo it
is entirely possible to onfigure a service such
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for
this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve
these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
Document:
(in the interest of efficiency, I'm going to respond to Harald's
and Simon's comments in a single note and pick up one of
Hector's remarks in the process)
Harald,
--On Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 09:53 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
Material comments:
- Section 3: RFC
Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com writes:
I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been
provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't
know how I can submit new versions of the WG internet drafts that I
am an co-author of. I can not even
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com writes:
Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com writes:
I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been
provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't
know how I can submit new versions of the WG internet drafts that I
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
So to be strictly accurate here, applications deal in names, some of
which are DNS names and some of which are IP address litterals. But an
'end user' application only deals in names.
how many people are pure end users who never need their tools to be
able to deal
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it. If
someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of this
one way or the other
Simon == Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org writes:
Question. It is my understanding/assumption that the ONLY
parties that one must clearance from are the actual listed
authors of the document. Specifically, one does NOT need to go
back to everyone who might have
Dave,
--On Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 10:26 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Indeed. But more importantly, this sub-thread naturally and
inevitably reduces down to an infinite, entirely unproductive
finger-pointing game.
For various reasons, I don't believe that game is infinite.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Hesham Soliman
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 2:33 AM
To: Colin Perkins
Cc: TSV Dir; ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-06.txt
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
We have a reality that the new IPR rules are fundamentally
problematic. Prior to their imposition, we had a functioning
system. Now we don't.
And the only thing that changed was imposition of the new
rules.
At 13:41 16-12-2008, Sam Hartman wrote:
For what it is worth, I as an individual support the new rules, and
believe Russ gave me a fine answer.
You asked a good question.
I would not support turning this into a choice.
According to a message [1] posted by the IETF Chair, the updated
I have a very different view of this situation, and disagree wstrongly
with John's recommended fix (or the equivalent fix of completely
rolling back 5378 and 5377.)
First and foremost, it should be kept in ming by anyone reading this
that the IPR working was convened by the then IETF chair,
The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language
WG (sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts '
draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
16 matches
Mail list logo
