Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So internet drafts, however ephemeral we claim them to be, are
versioned and referenceable. I don't know that the final step (the
RFC) is any less permanent than the history we maintain of the
drafts leading up to it.
That's beside the
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Brian Carpenter wrote:
Please see
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-ion-format.txt
It says text or html, but ion-ion-store is perfectly valid XHTML.
Is that a problem ?
I don't think so, do you?
The HTML output of xml2rfc is rather ugly with my
Dave,
Given that the Tools folk have created yet-another useful mechanism,
making each working group's page have a link to its related status
information now becomes a trivial effort, with substantial benefit.
This would be useful. (FWIW, I've already moved to using
only the tools page -- you
The HOKEY WG will hold a one-day interim meeting. The CAPWAP WG will
hold an interim meeting at the same location on the two days
following the HOKEY WG interim meeting. Here are the details:
HOKEY WG Interim Meeting
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (PDT)
If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.
In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
address can see the short list of candidates.
At that point, shouldn't we just be making the
Hi Sam,
Commenting only on the possibility of accessing the candidate list,
further down:
on 2006-12-18 15:37 Sam Hartman said the following:
If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.
In other words
Julian Reschke wrote:
IMHO it would be a good idea in the sense of own dogfood not to
serve XHTML content with media type text/html.
Matter of taste, from my POV XHTML 1.0 transitional is the best way
to create backwards compatible (HTML 3.2) content visible with any
browser.
Or as the
Judging from the email addresses where I received solicitations for
comments, either every RFC author or every I-D author received an
invitation to comment. (I suspect the latter, since the invitations
seemed to be tailored by working group, i.e., an I-D in a Transport
working group earned
Dave Crocker wrote:
minor enhancement: Put a link to that page on the working group's
main IETF page.
There's a link to the Charter, isn't that the old main page ?
A working group's main page really is its home page and, therefore,
ought to bring together references to all relevant
Dave Crocker wrote:
Bill Fenner wrote:
Mike,
Check out http://tools.ietf.org/wg/wgname and see if that gives
you the view you're looking for.
Bill, thanks. I suspect that's what Michael has in mind, except for
one minor enhancement: Put a link to that page on the working group's
main
Hi Dave, Frank,
on 2006-12-18 17:20 Frank Ellermann said the following:
Dave Crocker wrote:
minor enhancement: Put a link to that page on the working group's
main IETF page.
Good idea. And actually already implemented some time ago. Looking
at for instance the mip4 charter page, at
I received four of these, apparently on the strength of being an RFC
author, and was immediately sure there had been a mistake.
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Judging from the email addresses where I received solicitations for
comments, either every RFC author or every I-D author received an
Michael Thomas wrote:
Given that the Tools folk have created yet-another useful mechanism, making
each working group's page have a link to its related status information now
becomes a trivial effort, with substantial benefit.
Right, this is really cool -- although a link from the ietf wg page
Sam Hartman wrote:
If I'm reading the following mail correctly, it sounds like the nomcom
is requesting feedback from a working group mailing list.
In other words anyone who creates a tools.ietf.org account for that
address can see the short list of candidates.
At that point, shouldn't we
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for you last sentence, perhaps it should give some pause. The idea
that we do not already have a pretty clear idea of what should
distinguish an I-D from an ION ought to engender concern. Like any
other project consuming significant resources, an experiment is
The CAPWAP WG will hold a two-day interim meeting. Here are the
details:
CAPWAP WG Interim Meeting
Wednesday Thursday, January 24 25, 2007 9:00am - 5:00pm (PDT) 3750
Cisco Way (Building 15) San Jose, CA, USA
More information about the CAPWAP WG can be found on our charter page:
I assume that the nominee sub-section labeled GEN is really for the IETF
Chair?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On Monday, December 18, 2006 10:18 AM -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume that the nominee sub-section labeled GEN is really
for the IETF Chair?
I think you should assume, given the number of these things that
all of us seem to be receiving, that the Nomcom is
Hi,
There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html
There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps
at any rate. The online form says no rooms are available
that week.
I'm having trouble finding Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic
with
Folks,
In my/our usual fashion, we've slipped into engineering refinement discussions
about the Nomcom's new mechanism for soliciting feedback, without commenting
separately about the basic existence of that effort.
So here is an unqualified thank you to the Nomcom
folks
Hi Dave,
on 2006-12-18 19:18 Dave Crocker said the following:
I assume that the nominee sub-section labeled GEN is really for the IETF
Chair?
Yes. I'll fix that in a moment.
Henrik
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
IIRC the hotel web site has a map. You could use that to find the names of
nearby streets.
Janet
Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/18/2006 01:37:43 PM:
Hi,
There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html
There are no more rooms at the
Janet P Gunn wrote:
IIRC the hotel web site has a map. You could use that to find the names of
nearby streets.
Really? Where?
The one I found didn't have street names.
http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/PRGHITW/directions.do#localmap
Janet
Andy
Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Dave Crocker wrote:
At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public?
1. They are careful to say that the lists that are stuffed
with some fake entries. Although I respect the intention,
this long-standing technique -- attempting to protect the
privacy of actual
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
You're much better off following this link (but I think you have to use
Internet Explorer for it to work):
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2cp=50.09292~14.437961style=rlvl=17tilt=-90dir=0alt=-1000rtp=null~null
I'm having trouble finding Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic
with online maps.
I believe hotel is toward the west end of the street, near the bridge
to the island in the river:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=ene=UTF8om=1ie=UTF8z=16ll=50.092682,14.443717spn=0.009375,0.016673
On the
On Sunday, December 17, 2006 06:05:45 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary, I
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex;
we just
On Dec 17, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Nomcom06 wrote:
The NomCom requests that you provide your
input as soon as possible, for full consideration, please have them
in no later than the end of the day, Tuesday, January 2, 2007.
Folks, you might want to consider that it's the week before
Christmas.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements '
draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-06.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Network Mobility Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.
A
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): the Small-Packet (SP) Variant '
draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-voip-07.txt as an Experimental RFC
This document is the product of the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE '
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Padding Chunk and Parameter for SCTP '
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-padding-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Lars Eggert and Magnus
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4742
Title: Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol
over Secure SHell (SSH)
Author: M. Wasserman, T. Goddard
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4743
Title: Using NETCONF over the Simple
Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
Author: T. Goddard
Status: Standards Track
Date: December
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4733
Title: RTP Payload for DTMF Digits,
Telephony Tones, and Telephony Signals
Author: H. Schulzrinne, T. Taylor
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4741
Title: NETCONF Configuration Protocol
Author: R. Enns, Ed.
Status: Standards Track
Date: December 2006
Mailbox:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
37 matches
Mail list logo
