Hi Mary,
At 20:02 25-02-2013, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] You can find quite a few articles that discuss how many people
follow a healthy lifestyle - exercise, eat their veggies, don't smoke,
etc. and that's about 10% if the population (there are US and European
studies). In is extremely common
Could you give your summary experience of implementing DFF and which
network was it deployed/tested in and the summary result? I think this
information will help other users and also the IESG to make future
decisions :-)
AB
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen
On 26 févr. 2013, at 12:29, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Could you give your summary experience of implementing DFF and which network
was it deployed/tested in and the summary result? I think this information
will help other users and also the IESG to make future
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen
i...@thomasclausen.org wrote:
On 26 févr. 2013, at 12:29, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Could you give your summary experience of implementing DFF and which
network was it deployed/tested in and the summary result?
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
In Section 5:
For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant
information can be gathered from attendees that have previously
visited the city.
There are recurrent discussions as
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:42 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
In Section 5:
For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant
information can be gathered from attendees that
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
have talked to the Secretariat before (and recently), and verified
this
--On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 09:09 -0600 Mary Barnes
mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
[WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be
appropriate - having this draft explicitly recommend use of a
wiki or other semi-permanent method to store and share
information collaboratively about
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
have talked to the
On 2/26/13 10:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
Requires a Unix like system...
I find these Linux-isms to be an abomination (remember when Unix
users used to know how to use Unix? Seems like ages and ages ago).
I use timeanddate.com quite a bit, myself. It's got some handy
calculators.
Melinda
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes:
In Section 5:
For cases of first time attendees for a specific location,
relevant information can be gathered from attendees that have
previously visited the city.
There are recurrent discussions as nobody
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013
On Feb 26, 2013 2:24 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
for the reader...
Simple. Go to the UK, ensure it's winter, and ask a policeman.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:23 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/26/13 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James
joel jaeggli wrote:
Michael Tuexen wrote:
Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Requires a Unix
At 01:01 PM 2/26/2013, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com
It used to be 5 PM Pacific, now it's 24:00 UTC.
It's always been 2400 UTC, but with all the daylight savings time
adjustments from country to country changing from year to year, I
have talked to the Secretariat
Hi Martin,
--On February 26, 2013 at 9:28:23 PM +0100 Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Finding the current time in UTC could reasonably be left as an exercise
for the reader...
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG
Dale,
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:
All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by UTC
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what the heck is 24:00?
That one is weird, no doubt about it, but ultimately
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte
piece
On 2/26/13 2:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Dale,
Personally, I'd trust date -u much sooner than any random person.
Even better:
$ date --date='00:00 Feb 26, 2013 UTC'
Mon Feb 25 19:00:00 EST 2013
$
Funny thing is when I try the date from the announcement:
All Final Version
I think the problem is that if they said 0:00, it would be on Tuesday, February
26th, not Monday, February 25th, and people would submit a day late...
Margaret
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/26/13 1:25 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Seriously, what
On 2/26/13 1:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to informally distribute updates directly
on the
list, and cuts off access to work
Joes,
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to informally distribute updates directly on
the list, and cuts off access to work that doesn't need to happen in
sync with an IETF meeting.
I agree with your point to a large extent, but I'm sure there
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated
On 2/26/13 1:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
On the one hand, having a cut-off time could help WG chairs make a decision
as to whether to entertain a discussion on a draft. On the other hand,
having no cut-off date might mean that drafts are submitted extremely late
and it makes it more
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
keep all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon grm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we keep
all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.
For that to help, one must also assert that the people who would read the
changes two weeks before the meeting wouldn't read the changes the night
before the meeting, and that they'll remember whatever it is they need to
remember to be a useful active participant.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at
On 26/02/2013 22:59, Warren Kumari wrote:
Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk
procrastinating and actually *submit*.
+1
lots of people - including me - are almost entirely event driven (no pun
intended).
Nick
On 27/02/2013, at 9:59 AM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon grm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
keep all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:16:30 AM Mark Nottingham wrote:
I think that's a poor trade-off. As discussed before, the publishing embargo
disrupts work that isn't in sync with meetings. This is a tangible and
somewhat high price to pay just to serve as a procrastination-buster for
those
I'd be willing to deal with an embargo for draft-ietf-*, but don't see at all
why it extends
to other drafts.
We have software. Embargo drafts for WGs that are actually meeting
during the preceding week, leave the others alone.
From: m...@sap.com (Martin Rex)
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
local time zone *anywhere*.
I would appreciate if the local
On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 07:35:35 PM Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:31:12PM -0900, Melinda Shore wrote:
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some ferkakte
piece of software.
I don't think so. ISO (ISO 8601) seems to think that
In message 20130227054857.gd7...@mx1.yitter.info, Andrew Sullivan writes:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:31:12PM -0900, Melinda Shore wrote:
it's 23:59 + 1 minute, which is clear. But I really
think 24:00 is confusing. 0:00 is clearer. I'm
wondering if they're trying to work around some
I'm doing a lot of work in regards to, creating working code, benchmarking,
testing, writing specs and prose, writing emails, wash, rinse, repeat, and
yes, the deadline is interfering with the publishing of the work-product of
all of that and likely the progress of the group.
... and what is the
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:19:15, David Singer wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 14:11 , Claudia Diaz claudia.d...@esat.kuleuven.be
wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 09:45:38, SM wrote:
At 13:15 25-02-2013, Claudia Diaz wrote:
If that entity is a gov/commercial organization, then security is the
term
So what if we just said Security Considerations must include what some people
call privacy considerations? If we cannot agree on a concise definition of
security vs. privacy, what is the typical draft author going to do?
--
Sent from a mobile device. Sorry for typos or weird auto-correct. Thank
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header Field Namespace for
Local Emergency Communications'
(draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-05.txt) as Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
(draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-12.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Operations and Management
Area. For additional information please contact the Area Directors or the
WG Chairs.
Web PKI OPS (wpkops)
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Chairs:
Sharon Boeyen
The SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple) in
the
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area has concluded. The IESG contact
persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.
The mailing list will remain open.
The Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services (bliss) working group in
the
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area has concluded. The IESG contact
persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.
The mailing list will remain open.
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Using the ECC Brainpool Curves for IKEv2 Key Exchange'
draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool-03.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
48 matches
Mail list logo
