On 10.05.2011 03:44, John C Klensin wrote:
John,
Depends on where you look. DOIs are popular in some
communities, URNs in others, and, of course, some communities
have not discovered either. For most purposes, DOIs and URNs
can be considered functionally equivalent, but one of the
differences
On 09.05.2011 19:07, SM wrote:
...
For what it is worth, the draft was intended for publication as an
Internet Standard (STD 71). As I see it, the problem here is that
"Intended status: Standards Track" is assumed to be "Proposed Standard".
As the Document Shepherd runs a draft through Id-nits, h
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Steve Crocker wrote:
A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the boilerplate of
every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online from ..."
The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement. If
someone pays $47 f
This reminds me of what a colleague once said about government-run lotteries:
"A tax on people who are bad at math". In this case the fools don't seem to be
throwing all that many dollars away (at least not per document).
Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf
--On Monday, May 09, 2011 23:41 + John Levine
wrote:
> In article <516ebea6-e089-4952-ae33-de799e375...@mnot.net> you
> write:
>> If only there were some uniform resource locator system,
>> whereby we could use a string to both identify and locate
>> such a document, and include such a stri
+1
The elegance and simplicity of this is quite nice.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net
Steve Crocker wrote:
A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the
boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online
from ..." The copyright rules would proh
A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the
boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online
from ..."
The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement. If
someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, h
In article <516ebea6-e089-4952-ae33-de799e375...@mnot.net> you write:
>If only there were some uniform resource locator system, whereby we
>could use a string to both identify and locate such a document, and
>include such a string *in* our specifications.
It exists, it's called a DOI. I don't un
Subject: [www.ietf.org/rt #37575] transcript of IETF-80 tech plenary discussion?
From: "Wanda Lo via RT"
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:28:23 -0700
To: jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com
Hi Jeff,
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/plenaryt.txt
The minutes are based on Renee's transcript.
Wand
On 05/09/2011 07:51, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Companies sell tap water in bottles at prices higher than those of
gasoline...
Fortunately gasoline is catching up fast. :)
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of
Hi Russ,
At 07:34 09-05-2011, Russ Housley wrote:
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant
Thanks for sharing that.
hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been adopted to
permit downrefs, but they are not sufficient. We often see Last
Call rep
On May 9, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
> Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug.
>
> IEEE Xplore regularly does "deals" (read: free) to add publishers to the
> digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if
> you are more likely to get a hit using the
Bob,
What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not,
was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of
preventing fools from throwing their money away.
John Klensin,
Indeed, I do remember. ;-)
Bob Braden.
___
Ietf mail
On 09.05.2011 18:10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi Julian,
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 09.05.2011 16:34, Russ Housley wrote:
...
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been adopted
to permit downrefs, but they ar
Hi Julian,
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 09.05.2011 16:34, Russ Housley wrote:
...
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been
adopted to permit downrefs, but they are not sufficient. We often
see Last Call
On 09.05.2011 16:34, Russ Housley wrote:
...
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been adopted to
permit downrefs, but they are not sufficient. We often see Last Call repeated
just to resolve a downref t
--
Terre natale !
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
glassey [tglas...@earthlink.net]
>
> Hmmm. Does the IETF publication license allow this? the commercial
> resale of its documents?
There is no copyright notice on RFC 793, but it was published after
1976, so the question would revolve around the "implicit license"
involved in publishing RFCs at t
SM:
> s much as I would like to use the IESG as a scapegoat, the reality is that
> IETF working groups also work briskly to on impediments. Section 4 mentions
> that "the rules that prohibit references to documents at lower maturity
> levels are a major cause of stagnation in the advancement
Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug.
IEEE Xplore regularly does "deals" (read: free) to add publishers to the
digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if
you are more likely to get a hit using their service, you are more likely to
use the service.
We (R
Hi,
>> Today if you're an IEEE type, and you wonder where to find RFC 793, or
>> you're wondering what RFC 793 is about, and you look it up in IEEE
>> Xplore, the online library that all electrical engineers use, and that
>> their employers have site subscriptions for, you'll find ... nothing.
>>
> Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> We had a special line printer for this purpose and a machine called a
> "burster", something I have not seen or heard about in about 25 years.
If you refer to the machine that separates the sheets into individual
pages when fed listing paper (continuous, but not on a roll,
22 matches
Mail list logo