Marc Blanchet writes:
We will be sending the documents for IESG consideration for Proposed
Standard on March 11th 2002.
That's outrageous. IDNA has received strong written objections from at
least fifteen regular WG participants and _hundreds_ of other people.
IDNA will cause a tremendous
At 03:58 AM 3/11/2002 +, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
That's outrageous.
Hyperbole and sweeping, undocumented assertions are outrageous.
Forwarding specifications that have been carefully responsive to the
problem that the group was tasked with solving... now that is NOT
outrageous. It's what
- Original Message -
From: D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] WG last call summary
Marc Blanchet writes:
We will be sending the documents for
At 8:53 AM -0500 3/9/02, John Stracke wrote:
However, what's the point of tying someone to the
rails after the train wreck?
As a deterrent, I think. Don't misrepresent the ITU position, because
they know whom they sent, and you'll blow your credibility in the ITU.
The trouble here is the
At 3:58 AM + 3/11/02, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
You say that you are obliged to ignore all these objections because the
IDN WG has to _do something_.
You are lying again, Dan. Marc never said that, and you know it.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
Shouldn't this be considered as BCP rather than Informational?
Formal liaison rules don't substitute well for responsibility
and judgment.
I would suggest that a set of guidelines for collaboration
between IETF and other organizations in general should
include an analysis of common failure
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:45:15 EST, John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
One solution to this one might be to close the loop: if a WG is going to
act on a claim that the ITU wants such-and-so, then the WG chair checks
with the ITU (somehow...). And vice versa, of course.
This would be a
Hi
I have been bugging U guys a lot for long now .
especially Hari
OK here is another question quite similar to
previous one:
Net meeting by Microsoft is not suppoted by NAT
. this is the major problem
--this is a problem with NAT or with NET
meeting.??
I think I should
Net meeting by Microsoft is not suppoted by NAT . this is the major
problem
you may not have noticed that
o there is no ietf standards track document for net meeting
o there is no ietf standards track document for nat
hence no one here is surprised. caveat emptor.
we design and
Net meeting by Microsoft is not suppoted by NAT . this is the major
problem
NATs violate many of the assumptions of the Internet Protocol. It's
unrealistic to expect many kinds of IP applications to work in the
presence of NATs, unless they were specifically designed to do so.
And
Hi Vivek:
I am behind a
firewall, as Help-desk Mgr. we had to find some answers for our customers
regarding the issues you ask. I am SURE the problem is with netmeeting and other
MS comunications softwatre. Try the following links:
http://messenger.msn.com/support/knownissues.asp
Discussions halted more than a month ago in deference to the active
NOMCOM process. Now that they have completed their task we should pick
up the discussion of the revision to the Nominating Committee
Procedures (RFC2727). I wanted to take this opportunity to remind
everyone about this
*** Someone will game the system, for
example, to move forward a technical proposal by telling
each group that the other group wants this.
One solution to this one might be to close the loop: if a WG is going
to
act on a claim that the ITU wants such-and-so, then the WG chair
checks
13 matches
Mail list logo
