On 6/4/2012 12:36 AM, SM wrote:
At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote:
So, I am left with a few questions:
- What is the similar forcing function if we use a wiki?
- Will the number of people that can make updates eliminate the need
for such a forcing function?
- Who designates the editor-in
Hi John,
At 18:34 03-06-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
I don't think that is a fair comparison. First of all, the Last
Call spawned the whole thread about colloquial language. I
don't have any way to know how many of those who participated in
that thread read all the way through the document and e
On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> ... I further guess that
> "on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than
> getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it
> takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the
> community to notice. ...
I second th
--On Sunday, June 03, 2012 15:36 -0700 SM
wrote:
> At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote:
>> it in a wiki, there will be more people that can make update,
>> but the publication process ensure that an end-to-end read
>> takes place when an update published as an RFC.
>
> Seven individuals
--On Sunday, June 03, 2012 14:58 -0800 Melinda Shore
wrote:
> On 6/3/12 2:46 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Also, perhaps because I have a more vivid (or paranoid)
>> imagination than you do, I can think of a lot more than four
>> individuals who would be inclined to wreck the party.
>
> This, I
At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote:
it in a wiki, there will be more people that can make update, but
the publication process ensure that an end-to-end read takes place
when an update published as an RFC.
Seven individuals (approximate) submitted comments during the Last
Call. That's no
On 6/3/12 2:46 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Also, perhaps because I have a more vivid (or paranoid)
imagination than you do, I can think of a lot more than four
individuals who would be inclined to wreck the party.
This, I think, is the show-stopper. Back when the internet started
to become popul
--On Sunday, June 03, 2012 17:40 -0400 Eric Burger
wrote:
> What we have now *is* sclerotic. See Russ' email above yours.
>
> Can we PLEASE eat our own dog food? Wikipedia managed not to
> melt down when they decided NOT TO BUILD WALLS so there were
> no gates for the barbarians to crush.
>
>
What we have now *is* sclerotic. See Russ' email above yours.
Can we PLEASE eat our own dog food? Wikipedia managed not to melt down when
they decided NOT TO BUILD WALLS so there were no gates for the barbarians to
crush.
Let's just turn on a wiki. Wiki's have a lot of technical measures to dea
On 6/3/12 11:13 , Dave Crocker wrote:
> Sitting in a pub in the Tiergarten metro station, in Berlin, today, I
> checked whether there were any open-access wireless points around.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37107291/ns/technology_and_science-security/
> There weren't.
>
> But one of the nets had
C. M. Heard wrote:
>> Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
>> packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.
>
> Such routers were always broken. An atomic packet has DF=0 and any
> router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant with
> the rel
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
Subject: maybe it's getting real
Sitting in a pub in the Tiergarten metro station, in Berlin, today, I checked
whether there were any open-access wireless points around.
There weren't.
It's very unfortunate "not sharing bandwidth" is getting real.
P
Sitting in a pub in the Tiergarten metro station, in Berlin, today, I
checked whether there were any open-access wireless points around.
There weren't.
But one of the nets had an SSID of IPV6...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them
together, they make a pretty good raft.
--Anon.
On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:34 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomi
Hi Ben,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response. Further comments inline. I deleted sections
> that do not appear to need further discussion.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Thanks for you
15 matches
Mail list logo
