On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
There is that. But don't forget
On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
appropriate way, or
On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
On 05/17/2013 10:18 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
wrote:
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load
On May 15, 2013, at 7:50 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
So lets play a little hypothetical here; What if an RIR or ICANN through a
global policy decided Whois Data no longer should be public for overriding
privacy reasons. My read of Section 5, is that would be proper path for such
Dave, Ralph,
Jari has expressed the goal of having AD concerns be raised more publicly.
Moving AD review and comment to the IETF Last Call venue nicely accomplishes
this, too.
I just posted elsewhere a suggestion to move this review even earlier, to WG
last call. Accomplishes most of
On 05/17/2013 05:31 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is
On 05/17/2013 05:32 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made, what the
current sticking points seem to be, what
Dave,
On 5/17/13 11:37 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made,
To be abundantly clear, you are hypothesizing a difference of opinion
between the IETF/IESG and the ICANN/RIR communities, wherein the
technical guidance of the IETF was considered during the ICANN/RIR
decision process, but in the end the outcome was contrary to IETF
expectations.
if you
--On Friday, May 17, 2013 18:54 +0300 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
To be abundantly clear, you are hypothesizing a difference of
opinion between the IETF/IESG and the ICANN/RIR communities,
wherein the technical guidance of the IETF was considered
during the ICANN/RIR decision process,
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:37 PM
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're
doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're
On 5/17/2013 10:28 AM, t.p. wrote:
The idea that working groups should be required to issue periodic
project progress reports seems strikingly reasonable and useful.
Some WG Chairs already do this and I find it most helpful. Even at the
most basic level, of what documents have changed status
John,
On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
draft of the document and do not believe it should be published
(at least as an RFC in the IETF Stream) until the problem is
remedied. The Introduction (Section 1) contains the
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major
Hi Folks,
We are facing a problem with Diameter Credit Control Application:
Problem discription:
Diameter client sends a CCR-update message to server,but server does not
respond to the request.
Now,as client is configured with session failover, it will send CCR-update to
backup server.
--On Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:14 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
draft of the document and do not believe it should be
published (at least as
On 18/05/2013 11:59, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:14 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
draft of the document and do not
On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter
milestones
or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months
behind
schedule? If the latter, why isn't the Foo WG meeting at the IETF?
I don't think milestones
On 05/17/2013 10:37 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
I don't think milestones will be useful unless and until:
(a) they're defined in terms of not only concrete but also
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area. The
IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-05-27.
The Path Computation Element (pce) working group in the Routing Area of
the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please contact
the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
Path Computation Element (pce)
Current Status: Active Working
24 matches
Mail list logo
