The point w.r.t. MIB module checking was that
during editing phase, even a small typo in a
double quote or some such would render the MIB
module invalid/non-compilable (i.e. invalid SYNTAX).
So if RPC does not touch the text at all, then there
is no need for them to check. But if they DO touch
Hi Hadriel,
At 12:31 16-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm proposing we charge large
corporations with large travel budgets slightly *more* than
others.[1] I'm not suggesting an overhaul of the system. I'm not
proposing they get more attention, or more
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Hadriel,
At 12:31 16-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm proposing we charge large
corporations with large travel budgets slightly *more* than others.[1]
I'm not suggesting an overhaul of the
On Aug 18, 2013, at 5:21 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try to
encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the IETF.
Define open source developers. Technically quite a lot of developers at my
--On Sunday, 18 August, 2013 08:33 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan
hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
...
And it does cost the IETF lots of money to host the physical
meetings, and that cost is directly proportional to the number
of physical attendees. More attendees = more cost.
I had promised myself
I've been told, though obviously I don't know, that the costs are proportional.
I assume it's not literally a if we get one additional person, it costs an
additional $500. But I assume SM wasn't proposing to get just one or a few
more open source developer attendees. If we're talking about
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Hadriel Kaplan
hadriel.kap...@oracle.comwrote:
On Aug 18, 2013, at 5:21 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try
to encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the
IETF.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
My web submission told me Your submission is pending email
authentication. An email has been sent you with instructions. more than an
hour ago, but I haven't seen such a mail.
I
In article 01672754-1c4f-465b-b737-7e82dc5b3...@oracle.com you write:
I've been told, though obviously I don't know, that the costs are
proportional. I assume it's not literally a if we get
one additional person, it costs an additional $500. But I assume SM wasn't
proposing to get just one or
The anti-hijacking feature causes the confirmation email to
only go to the authors listed on the previous version of the document, so
mail was not sent to me and things are working as expected.
This behavior is not documented to the user when they submit the document
and is therefore a bug.
Hi Hadriel,
At 05:33 18-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Define open source developers. Technically quite a lot of
developers at my employer develop open source, as do many at many
of the corporations which send people to the IETF. Heck, even I
personally submit code to Wireshark now and then.
11 matches
Mail list logo
