-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/23/2013 07:38 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> Very good initiative.
>
> Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
> tools to collaborate.
Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by th
Hi Hector,
On Feb 23, 2013, at 9:51 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Hi, with a quick review, and many comments and points, I think the one single
> part that I would have some questions about is in the intro:
>
> The guidance provided in
> this document is generic and can be used to inform the
Hey Randy
SDP, defined in the MMUSIC WG (why isn't this
being discussed on that list? because it'll have
to go to that list before this draft progresses
anyway), isn't a negotiation protocol, it's an
offer/answer exchange (per RFC3264) - and even if
you didn't want SIP, there's not a back-an
Why not?
I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them very useful
for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF shouldn't. Please, tell me.
as
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Feb 2013, at 02:21, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
Reply to your request dated 07/02/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 24/02/2013
Reviewer Comment #AB2: Related to Applicability and Processing.
The DFF mechanism specified in the document can either be used as
"route-over" IPv6 forwarding
Reply to your request dated 07/02/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 24/02/2013
Reviewer Comment #AB3: Related to Processing and interaction with others.
In section 11
AB>The DFF MUST contain the next hop of RIB, but in
Hi, Arturo, all,
It does not seem appropriate for a technical standards organization dedicated
to making the Internet work better through the development of open standards to
implicitly endorse "communication protocols" which are based on closed access
to distributed databases through interface
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/24/2013 05:21 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> Why not?
>
> I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them very
> useful for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF shouldn't.
> Please, tell me.
You said collaborate belo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Yes, I correct, I meant to outreach and not collaborate.
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards
should be the way forward.
For outreach my opinion is that does not matter.
Regards,
as
On 25/02/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I meant outreach, not collaborate.
In the case of collaboration I agree with you. Although today we use
webex that does not seem to open to me (at least not more than FB,
Google+ and twitter).
In the case of outreach it doe
On 25/02/13 07:56, Arturo Servin wrote:
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards
should be the way forward.
Moreover, entities controlling these social platforms are, presumably,
also participating in IETF. So, using these tools would give one party
unfair a
>> Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
>> tools to collaborate.
>
> Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF
> or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using collaboration tools owned by
> the entities you listed, or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/24/2013 11:02 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 25/02/13 07:56, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards should
>> be the way forward.
>
> Moreover, entities controlling these social platforms
13 matches
Mail list logo
