Re: Last Call: (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard

At 06:37 11-08-2011, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to consider the following document: - 'Message Submission for Mail' as a Full Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. P

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

Barry Leiba wrote: So the question really goes to the mailman people: can we get an option to make the prefix inclusion a subscriber option? Each list would have a default behaviour, but each user could change it (just as I now change every list's "suppress duplicates" option when I subscribe t

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > Richard Kulawiec wrote: >> >> Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose >> to "drink from the firehose" by subscribing to many mailing lists > > List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on > their han

Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Total of 119 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 12 00:53:02 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 11.76% | 14 | 9.31% |89125 | g...@net-zen.net 2.52% |3 | 14.56% | 139501 | mary.ietf.bar...

RE: Last Call: (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard

> -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony > Hansen > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:02 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: (Message > Submission for Mail) to Full Standard > > I support publication of this RFC. +

Re: Last Call: (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard

I support publication of this RFC. Tony Hansen t...@att.com On 8/11/2011 9:37 AM, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to consider the following document: - 'Message Submission for Mail' as a Full Standard The IESG plans to make a deci

Re: Gen-ART Review: Last Call

fwiw - the author of 2119 thinks that less is more when it comes to the use of these terms see, as Cullen points out, Section 6 but there is a balance - for example, if you define a structure and say that all fields are required, it is redundant to use MUST with each example of using the struct

Re: Gen-ART Review: Last Call

Thanks for the detailed review - you caught some good stuff. Most of this makes essence but we should probably talk about usage of 2119 language. On Aug 9, 2011, at 16:05 , Mary Barnes wrote: > simple > === > > Document: draft

Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: sami -- State Migration

On 12/08/2011, at 1:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 8/11/11 7:46 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >> BTW - was not clouds@ shut down? In any case I do not see it listed at >> http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html. > > It was indeed closed down. Hmm.

Re: [Idr] Last Call: (Deprecation of the use of BGP AS_SET, AS_CONFED_SET.) to Informational RFC

> The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to > consider the following document: > - 'Deprecation of the use of BGP AS_SET, AS_CONFED_SET.' >as an Informational RFC i have read and support this document. AS-Sets are essentially unused, the deprecation is needed f

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Martin Rex wrote: Richard Kulawiec wrote: Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose to "drink from the firehose" by subscribing to many mailing lists List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on >> their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire >> to actually process the email they're receiving. > ... >> I'm a simple human being that can focus his mind a

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:49:22AM -0400, Richard Kulawiec wrote: > >> And actually, no, you can't *always* tell those discussion apart, >> nor can you tell them from off-list replies. > > List headers don't guarantee helping with that, thou

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

> List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on > their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire > to actually process the email they're receiving. ... > I'm a simple human being that can focus his mind and his eyesight > only on one single thing at a time, so

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

Richard Kulawiec wrote: > > Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose > to "drink from the firehose" by subscribing to many mailing lists List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on their hands, or want to use automatic archival and have no desire to

Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: sami -- State Migration

On 8/11/11 7:46 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > BTW - was not clouds@ shut down? In any case I do not see it listed at > http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html. It was indeed closed down. /psa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/ma

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:49:22AM -0400, Richard Kulawiec wrote: > And actually, no, you can't *always* tell those discussion apart, > nor can you tell them from off-list replies. List headers don't guarantee helping with that, though, either, because many lists will supporess the echo of the li

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 07:00:29AM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: > With subject_prefix I can quite easily tell apart discussions from several > IETF mailing lists, and it works with _every_ MUA with default settings. The fact that poor, broken, obsolete, or non-standards-compliant MUAs exist is not a v

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 07:16:39PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: > Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff > in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read >95% > of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). Let me star

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Disagree. The caveat is that we are defining something different. We are > looking > at the case where we want to know that it is safe to start sending data. We > are > using the existence of some "SHOULD" statements in related RFCs that descr

RE: New Non-WG Mailing List: sami -- State Migration

Hi Mark, The scope of the new mail list is much more restricted than the one of the clouds list. I acknowledge that there is a balance we all need to keep within reasonable limits between many too focused lists and lesser more general lists. My opinion is that it's better to discuss on lists tha

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

On 10/08/2011 19:35, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi Ben, Thanks for reading. Nits/editorial comments: -- section 1, paragraph 4: "...with relation to the programming..." ... in relation to... Yeah. RFC Editor note if Stewart is watching (although I'm guessing the RFC Editor might just fix this any

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

- Original Message - From: "Martin Rex" To: "Barry Leiba" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:00 AM Barry Leiba wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > > If one intends to actually *process* close to all of the Emails hitting > > one's inbox in near real time,

Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Since I have not hear a single word of news from Thailand for a long time (apart from that story about the jailed American author), I assume things are "just fine" there nowadays. Human trafficking nothwithstanding :-) They just performed an election

Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center

Glen, I am NOT arguing against holding a meeting in Thailand if we find a suitable venue, sponsors, available dates and all that. I was merely pointing out that companies and governments tend to over-react and issue blanket warnings and bans for places with the kind of unrest we are talking a