With respect to the proposed update to the Language Subtag Registry
draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10:
I would like to lodge an objection to the deletion of the Preferred-Value for
language subtag YU.
This change breaks the equivalence class relation between YU and CS. It
detrimentally changes
I believe this to be on-topic for this list based on the
summary of on-topic subjects. However I don't see any
similar subjects recently, so apologies if there is a
batter place, and a pointer to it would be appreciated.
I have had it confirmed by the secretariat that the terminal
room at IETF
Hi Hannes,
Hans wrote:
Josh wrote:
Hans wrote:
Josh wrote:
I have a long list of applications, collected from within this
community, with which they would like to use SAML-based
authorisation;
Interesting. Any interest to share it with us?
I'm in the process of trying
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Hello,
The new issue of the IETF Journal - Volume 4, Issue 3 - is now
available at http://ietfjournal.isoc.org
You can read this publication online or choose to download the full
issue in PDF format. You can also keep up to date with the latest
issue of the IETF
On 1 mrt 2009, at 23:49, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
PS. Re: your side note below on the makeup of the ISOC Board, we'll
update the list to show the community or mechanism that appoints/
elects Trustees. In the meantime, the IETF appoints 3 Trustees
(out of 13, 12 voting and me non-voting).
Does this help?
http://www.bayarealaptops.com/
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Sent: Mon 3/2/2009 5:04 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Terminal room at IETF74
I believe this to be on-topic for this list based on the
summary of
Chris,
At recent IETFs, I've found it helpful to have a couple of machines in
the terminal room. Having machines that are pre-configured saved me the
time of setting up my machine to work with the printers when I just
wanted to quickly print out a draft during a break.
So it might be
On Feb 28, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
The safety of an assumption about an authorizing domain originating
a message depends upon the reputation of the SMTP client for its
protection of the PRA and Mail From. Unfortunately, identifiers
for the SMTP
At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
As this draft is being considered as a Proposed Standard, will it
be authoritative instead of RFC 5821/5322?
This presumes that there are different semantics or syntax offered by them.
I'm replying to this point separately so that it does not get
For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is
authoritative?
d/
SM wrote:
At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
As this draft is being considered as a Proposed Standard, will it be
authoritative instead of RFC 5821/5322?
This presumes that there are different
On Mon Mar 2 15:49:09 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is
authoritative?
Whichever is cited by the document referencing the content, of course.
Alternately, we could have a public food fight between Klensin,
Resnick, and Crocker.
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Mar 2 15:49:09 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is
authoritative?
Whichever is cited by the document referencing the content, of course.
That sounds pretty unstable, since it produces context-dependent
At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them.
email-arch Section 2.2.2
The Relay performs MHS-level transfer-service routing and store-and-
forward, by transmitting or retransmitting the message to its
Recipients. The
At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them.
email-arch Section 2.2.2
The Relay performs MHS-level transfer-service routing and store-and-
forward, by transmitting or retransmitting the message to its
Recipients.
Maybe Dave you should add an Updates tag to your draft?
Eliot
On 3/2/09 5:26 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them.
email-arch Section 2.2.2
The Relay performs MHS-level
-
archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090302/28633679/attachment.sig
--
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:05:18 -0800
From: Tex Texin texte...@xencraft.com
Subject: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value
for
YU
To: l...@ietf.org, ietf
Hi -
From: Tex Texin texte...@xencraft.com
To: l...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:05 AM
Subject: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred valuefor
YU
With respect to the proposed update to the Language Subtag Registry
ned+ietf-s...@mrochek.com wrote:
At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them.
email-arch Section 2.2.2
The Relay performs MHS-level transfer-service routing and store-and-
forward, by transmitting or retransmitting
For the record, as a participant of the MIT/IETF P2Pi May 2008
workshop, I believe that draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report is
an accurate reflection of the happenings at the said workshop.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533,
--On Monday, March 02, 2009 10:04 + Dearlove, Christopher
(UK) chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
...
I have had it confirmed by the secretariat that the terminal
room at IETF 74 will not contain any machines, presumably
just network connections.
...
But now, if I come to IETF74, I
Hannes,
Two mostly rhetorical questions...
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example, come up
with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium (see
On Mon Mar 2 16:05:16 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Mar 2 15:49:09 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one
is authoritative?
Whichever is cited by the document referencing the content, of
course.
That sounds
Hi Joel,
Hannes,
Two mostly rhetorical questions...
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management
space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example,
come up with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
But now, if I come to IETF74, I won't have a laptop with me.
Corporate policy, based on recent US legal decisions, is that
I may not take a laptop (or PDA etc.) into the USA. This is
not subject to modification. Obviously even a machine in the
terminal room
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:16:19 -0500
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
This should go on ISOC's list of things to whine to the new US
administration about, along with visa request rejections because
attending the IETF isn't a good enough reason.
It's not just the US; other governments --
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Joel,
Hannes,
Two mostly rhetorical questions...
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management
space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example,
come up with the question why ISOC did
At 9:35 PM +0200 3/2/09, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I find it somewhat interesting that we would perceive the ISOC
as being responsible to the IETF in this regard.
Responsible is not the right term. A bit better synchronized would be nice.
ISOC has multiple staff members at every IETF, and those
Christopher,
Actually, the Terminal Room will have two laptops set up for attendee
use; these are traditionally used primarily for printing (boarding
passes, etc) but are available for other uses as well.
Regards,
Alexa
On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:04 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I
Richard Barnes wrote:
Chris,
At recent IETFs, I've found it helpful to have a couple of machines in the
terminal room. Having machines that are pre-configured saved me the time of
setting up my machine to work with the printers when I just wanted to quickly
print out a draft during a
Dave CROCKER wrote:
It looks like the cost ranges between US$125 and US$200 for one week's
rental.
At the san francisco bestbuy, $299 + 8.5% ca sales tax buys your choice
of blue pink white copper or black acer asus dell hp or msi netbooks...
At 07:49 02-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is
authoritative?
There are several possible answers:
1. The author of the draft chooses the email-arch draft
2. The author of the draft chooses RFC 5321 and RFC 5332
3. Have the
Hi -
From: Phillips, Addison addi...@amazon.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value for YU
Hi Tex,
I don't think this is probably appropriate, at least for this list to
consider.
Tex's posting
On 2009-03-01 15:39, George Michaelson wrote:
write your auth number down.
Or print the Authorization Approved page, since the auth number
is 16 alphanumerics and a mistake would be easy.
Brian
once you complete an app, the number is valid for 2+ years with
modifications to travel plans
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Support for Reduced-Size RTCP, Opportunities and Consequences '
draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Cullen
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Conference Event Package Data Format Extension for Centralized
Conferencing (XCON) '
draft-ietf-xcon-event-package-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Centralized Conferencing Working
Group.
The IESG contact
to Proposed Standard
Reply-to: i...@ietf.org
CC: a...@ietf.org
The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport WG (avt)
to consider the following document:
- 'The SEED Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-time
Transport Protocol (SRTP) '
74th IETF Meeting - San Francisco, CA
March 22-27, 2009
Host: Juniper Networks
While this is considered the final agenda for printing, changes may
happen to the agenda up until and during the meeting. Updates to the
agenda will be reflected on the web version of the agenda. This final
agenda has
37 matches
Mail list logo
