On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
put another way: how many folks are willing to pay an extra $300 per meeting
to cover the food?
A productive compromise would be to retain the break time drinks and
perhaps snacks but get rid of the breakfast ... and perhaps the arrival
reception
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I dispute his conclusion that a failed signature means that the message will
be thrown in the trash. Most filters (and certainly any compliant with the
criteria being discussed) would quarantine mail with a failed S/MIME
signature rather than
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Security is risk control, not risk elimination.
Absolutely!
Extending that thought, managing risk is about the cost of loss vs. the
cost of protection.
Humans make mistakes. Systems fail. Sammy Sousa used the wrong bat. The
suttles failed.
On 26 May 2003, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no cost to spam. It is purely an annoyance factor.
This strikes me as a pretty limited way to measure cost.
To the extent to which people would be willing to pay to not be
spammed, then spam is costing
Simon,
The proposals haven't been to eliminate free email, only to provide an
alternative which folks can require be used to send them email if they
haven't established a free relationship with the sender.
In the USA today, it costs $.37 to send a physical mail. I don't think it
unreasonable for
I'd like propose a theory reguarding the success of the junk fax law which
would provide a reason that similar laws reguarding junk email might not
be successful:
There are significant costs associated with the origination of junk faxes
in the the sender must tie up a phone line for the duration
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
In the future, it may become more and more difficult to find ISPs that
provide truly unrestrained two-way access to the Internet.
Another potential outcome (other than uninformed government intervention)
if the technical community doesn't
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Christian Huitema wrote:
There is an obvious issue with the protocol route: from a protocol point
of view, it is quite hard to distinguish unsolicited commercial e-mail,
which we would label spam, and unsolicited acceptable e-mail, which
could be more than welcome.
I
On Wed, 28 May 2003, S Woodside wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 02:01 PM, David Morris wrote:
Junk email on the other hand has an extremely low cost of transmission
in
the current economic model.
There is a difference between the people selling the product, and the
people
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Einar Stefferud wrote:
Hello Dave Morris ---
It would be helpful if you would explain how this payment system of
yours might actually work in real life.
One model exists in the postal service operated 'by' each country. Stamps
exist, procedures exist for sharing
over time. I
don't see any reason why protocol design should accomadate theft or
other violations of employer policies.
On Wed, 28 May 2003, S Woodside wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 01:42 PM, David Morris wrote:
In the USA today, it costs $.37 to send a physical mail. I don't think
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Please indicate some historical basis for moving an installed
base of users on this kind of scale and for this kind of reason.
their customers about the opportunity to use a new app. The larger
providers (AOL, MSN, Yahoo, ...)
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote:
on 5/29/2003 6:27 PM Dean Anderson wrote:
Anyway, with Type 1 and Type 2 spam, this is unnecessary, since they
tell you how to contact them in the message.
There is still a reason to have verifiable identities for commercial spam,
which is
What is demonstrated is that given the incentive, there was sufficient
information in this case to track down the offender in a relatively short
time span.
There is a signficant difference between spam and this example. Making a
bomb threat is a felony AND an activity which gets immediate
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Tomson Eric (Yahoo.fr) wrote:
How will the spammer's find her address?
Guessing and trying?
Online directory provided by her email provider?
Not understanding risks, she joins a seniors mail list?
Someone she corresponds with blasts an email to a bunch of
folks leaving
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
Given the above, the reason that the people who are most financially
hurt by the spam problem have not done anything about it from a
protocol level is either that they are financially stupid or that
I find your position curious for a couple of
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
David writes:
Guessing and trying?
That would require tens of thousands or even millions of bounces for every
successful mailing attempt. I don't think anyone is doing it that way.
Paul Vixie has provided his specific proof. I'd suggest that
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
It should also be noted that those receiving thie limited IETF
information, like those receiving censored news, have very little to
contribute since they don't know the whole story.
H, if the ietf censored list is so bad for my education, how is
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote:
on 6/2/2003 4:15 PM Tony Hain wrote:
I agree with the idea of a BOF, but 'anti-spam' is the wrong focus. Spam
is a social problem, not an engineering one. I contend that is why we
...
I agree that this is the right approach to pursue. In fact, I
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
still, pretending that a firewall can make up for a lack of security on the
host (ANY host) or in the apps is simply unrealistic, no matter who wrote the
host OS.
That statement is simply not true. Based on policies that reject inbound
connections to
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, S Woodside wrote:
On Saturday, June 21, 2003, at 08:17 PM, David Morris wrote:
Based on policies that reject inbound
connections to all computers except those carefully hardended and
sequestered an their own 'DMZ' will dramatically reduce the potential
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
I certainly don't share that assumption. Then again, I don't share the
assumption that any central coordinating authority is needed to set up
conferencing services.
This is an interesting point. The XCON WG is about _Centralized_
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Dave Crocker wrote:
Harald,
HTA and should make no assumptions on
HTA whether the trust is rooted in Verisign or psg.com, or is brokered through
HTA a mechanism that doesn't need a single root for its trust mechanism.
HTA If centralized conference control doesn't
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Bruce Campbell wrote:
Operationally, having one's not-low-overhead whois server being hit by
automated queries solely for existence-verification is a terrible state of
affairs.
Has anyone tried Verisign's whois server ... at least their 'web'
interface which is
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Correct me if I'm wrong, the principle disruption -- and I want to
emphasize disruption here -- I've seen is that a particular spam
indicator no longer works as expected. Is there more to this
On 17 Dec 2003, Franck Martin wrote:
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 14:05, Gordon Cook wrote:
would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of each message?
Me three! Please! Some mail list software allows me to set my own tag but
a recent attempt to find such a feature on the IETF
The point of [ietf] has little to do with programatic filters and much to
do with human visual filtering. Seeing the list tag in the list of
subjects provided in the index list provided by my mail client makes
human prioritization much easier. Headers are for programs, subject
content is for
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James M Galvin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote:
Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
Because we, people on the road, use various mail systems and even web
based mail
so do the rest of us. ever tried to read mail from a palm pilot?
those [foo] turds get *really* annoying...
Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
I'd be happier bumping the number any time the file is changed, so that the
tombstone supercedes the removed file and a subsequent posting supercedes
the tombstone.
Absolutely. Principals of version control are broken otherwise.
In the preferences
Furthermore, how often have you found that web content hasn't been kept
current ???
And exactly who will you appeal to if you arrive in Korea without a Visa
and you discover it is recovered.
If I were investing my funds in travel to Korea, I'd make sure that I had
the proper documents by dealing
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Dave Aronson wrote:
On Wed February 25 2004 09:53, John Stracke wrote:
Dave Aronson wrote:
Requiring digsigs on a list would help cut down on spammers forging
list members' addies to spam only members can post lists.
Not necessarily. Spam viruses would
Your logic breaks over the fact that you got the message because of who
you both know ... the ietf.org mailing list. It was not unsolicited mail
from a party with which you have no relationship.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Ed Gerck wrote:
I'd suggest that in this case you _are_ reacting to who
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, David Morris wrote:
Your logic breaks over the fact that you got the message because of who
you both know ... the ietf.org mailing list. It was not unsolicited mail
from a party with which you have no relationship
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
At the very least, someone reading the title and abstract of a draft (or
RFC) should be able to come away with enough of a sense of the document to
know whether it's a document they want to read and is applicable to them,
or it's not.
Best served
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, scott bradner wrote:
If your reduce the load enough that things can be
gotten out faster will result in deadlines closer to the
meetings hypothesis is correct, then I'd expect that we would
already have had a review --initiated by either by the IESG or
the
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Right. OTOH, the folks who send physical spam don't hijack other
people's postal meters, and the products they're selling usually
exist...
An because there is a finite real cost to preparing and sending physical
SPAM there is a real effort to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I agree that this demonstrates that the 'charge per email' schemes that
people have don't work.
It doesn't demonstrate any such thing. The physical junk mail I receive is
much more targeted to my family than spam is. I wouldn't bother with
Sure, but that then becomes an actual crime in most juristictions.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:45:21 -0800 (PST)
David Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It isn't a trivial technical problem to revise the electronic message
infrastructure to arrange
Huh, 14 days to respond where those 14 days include the traditional end of
year holliday interval? One has to assume this a proforma RFP where you
already know who you want to get the project. Any other possiblity only
allows for absurdly priced bids. Getting a quote prior to a site survey
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Darryl (Dassa) Lynch wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a major difference between a NAT box plugged into
the real Internet and a NAT box plugged into another NAT
box. It is a pretty ugly one for the
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
I think the thing that would help IPv6 the most would be the setting of a
hard date when no new IPv4 addresses would be issued. This would make it
real for everyone and ignite the IPv6/IPv4 gateway market (I think). Not to
mention we'd never have to
capability cost reductions will converge... or
perhaps some combination of legal and techical solutions will push spam
into the noise level. Etc.
Dave Morris
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
From: David Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
I think the thing
H
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Schliesser, Benson wrote:
In practice, alas, many of those who _do_ state
their name mumble it so thoroughly that I'm not
sure even repeated passes at the audio
record could decipher it.
Or, for that matter, have names that are of unfamiliar
As the administrator of several small networks, it is quite simple. By
re-writing the address, the NAT is a defacto default deny. I have a lot
more trust in the simplicity of a basic NAT in a consumer firewall then I
do in any firewall which has to examine each packet for conformance to
complex
I believe every POTS phone number is separately portable, at least within
the geographic area ... you can switch your POTS number between providers and
to cellular or VoIP providers. Business numbers are transferable (and have
been for longer than general portability) ... in the case I was
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Terry Gray wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
one of the areas in which I think the IPv4 design failed is that it
didn't really follow the catenet model. it was not possible to extend
the network from any point. and this is part of what led to NATs,
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Tony Li wrote:
Sorry, ISPs charge based on providing a *service*. Yes, that
includes bandwidth (and generally flat bandwidth, not usage) and also
Actually, bandwidth USAGE is frequently charged for in many parts of the
world. In the US, it is common for small businesses
Actually, a fundamental problem with the current protocol is that there
was little attention paid to the requirements of UI design experts. The
natural result is that application developers worked with what they had to
produce an interface usable by their average user. Any critique of the
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Greg Skinner wrote:
After installing a NAT firewall/router, I noticed my ssh connections
would drop when left idle for awhile. That never happened before -- I
could go away from my machine for hours, and as long as client and
server machines were up, with no network
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Returned message content in DSNs is often essential information for
debugging of mail system problems. Blindly insisting that DSNs
should not return subject message content is shortsighted. We
which they can't reveal, they should drop out
of the related working groups or other IETF organized discussions.
It really isn't socially acceptable to entrap IETF participants with
enticing techology whose encumberances aren't revealed.
David Morris
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Norbert Bollow wrote:
For an extreme example, consider hypothetically the case that an
essential part of the IPv6 protocol stack had such a patent issue.
Well, by the time the world is ready for IPv6 I expect that patent would
have expired ;-:)
by the weight of mail received.
David Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Andrew Newton wrote:
How do you square this against working group sessions that have
obviously been packed, where previous sessions were only moderately
attended but many new faces show up in anticipation of a very
important hum?
Well for starters, the drive-by
Expectations of support infrastructure change as technology evolves.
In those days, we got along just fine without cell phones as well.
Based on new technology our co-workers expect a level of internation not
previously possible. We are also used to immediate access to reference
material and as
As longs as I've attended meetings (13 years) and followed the feedback on
the IETF list re. meeting network support, the expectation has always been
that there would be a very high priority set on creating and maintaining a
smoothly operating network to support the meeting. New technologies were
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, David Kessens wrote:
mothership doesn't have ipv6 vpn support (yet). This certainly hasn't
stopped me from connecting back to the company that I work for and it
should not stop any competent engineer.
The question here is not if we'll have a room full of competent
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Among the many dummy things he mentions, this one is probably the best
:-) May be someone should tell him there are name resolution services
(and they existed even before the DNS)?
But someone has to configure those things. That most likely
Actually, I think the stronger complaints are about the fact that a
meeting for another purpose will be disrupted by the sub set of folks who
think they are obligated to try and get there lap top working because
there is a network experiment overlayed on the meeting. Plenaries are
already unwieldy
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:30 PM -0800 12/21/07, David Morris wrote:
Actually, I think the stronger complaints are about the fact that a
meeting for another purpose ...
another purpose? Those of us who were at the IESG/IAOC plenary 2.5
weeks ago will remember
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
If there were some serious technical consequence for lack of the MX record
I would be
all for specifying its use. Operational practice with A records shows that
there is no real issue,
only if you ignore the problems that have been observed and
On 29 Mar 2008, John Levine wrote:
to non-mail domains is significant. I have at least one host name
that was never a mail domain, but since it used to appear in usenet
headers it gets over 30,000 spams a day, every day.
I'm not convinced you've identifed causality ... only correlation. I
I think more important is that the cited intent when this thread was
warming up was that we were asking the Trust to NOT IMPOSE any
restrictions on code examples WHICH WEREN'T already present from
the contributor of the example. ANY license imposed by the Trust
would likley conflict with that
be administered. Perhaps define how a mail administrator might evaluate a
DNSBL's performance.
If interest warrant, follow the suggestion from Kieth (and others?) to
form a working group to evaluate protocol alternatives and design a
possibly improved protocol.
David Morris
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Al Iverson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:08 PM, David Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the end, walking isn't a viable alternative.
Because it's so hard to open a Gmail account? I think your thinking
here is about two generations out of date. Back in 1995 when
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Al Iverson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM, David Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Al Iverson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:08 PM, David Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the end, walking isn't a viable alternative
in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect
that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for
visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that
expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the
process. Etc.
David Morris
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23 nov 2008, at 20:25, Tony Hain wrote:
The fundamental problem here is that the voices of those bearing the
costs
in the core are being represented, while the voices of those doing
application development are
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
If your OS requires a reboot when you renumber get a real OS.
If your apps require that they restart when you renumber get
your apps fixed.
I fail to understand how an app such as ssh can maintain a secure
connection in the face of
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
It would be really interesting to try to evaluate each of multi-prefix,
map-and-encap, and map-and-translate according to (a) how much each
approach affects applications and hosts in general, and (b) how
deployable each approach is - where
On Mon, 10 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
Any chance we could require that one subscribes to the list before
posting to it? I realize that sufficiently motivated drive-bys could
subscribe, send, and leave, but it might reinforce the idea that IETF
lists are for debate, not for screeds.
of the burden of participation. Of course, nothing prevents
they from using some form of inbound mail filter to divert the replies.
David Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
.
David Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
.
David Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Willie Gillespie wrote:
David Morris wrote:
Seems like a unique mailbox per lastcall would be very helpful all around.
Right now, gathering and evaluating comments must be a nightmare. An
David Morris
...
Not a bad idea. In fact, it may be useful to have a unique list
Group Last Calls and no IETF Last
Call...
- Wes
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Willie Gillespie
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:34 PM
To: David Morris
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
David
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Jari Arkko wrote:
Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments.
Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are
very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF;
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:15 AM, David Morris wrote:
while providing the operational efficiency of collecting all discussion in
one place for actual analysis of last call
While there may be better ways of doing it, I'll note the IETF LC subject
the
copyright was at the end. It certainly isn't common.
David Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I was subscribed and was able to unsubcribe w/o any difficulties so as to
make the experience memorable. I would much prefer to not have been
bothered.
I recall very fondly the list filtered relay Fred mentions ...
unfortunately, one day it just stopped functioning w/o warning.
Dave
annotated in its MAC address.
Can't speculate about lay persons since I tend to think my network is more
complex than they would start with.
David Morris
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
As part of a research project, we are working on automated diagnostics of
network-related
of minimalist
formatting and the capabilities of richer formatting will be a
difficult challenge. A primary requirement should be maintaining access in
the widest possible set of computing environments. The adoption of modern
technologies is not in and of itself justification for change.
David
What are we smoking? The license can't be changed after the RFC is
published. At least, it can't be made more restrictive. I can't imagine
the chaos if one must prove your right to follow a particular set of
license rules based on proving exactly when you extracted code from a
published RFC.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The text we are discussing is only about what license we require other folks
to put on code they extract from an RFC.
And, even more specifically, it is only about how we describe that license in
the event that we want to change forward-going
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Richard Stallman wrote:
Generally speaking, standards are useful, because they enable people
to converge what they are doing. But that ceases to be true when the
use of the standard is patented. It is better to have no standard
than have a standard that invites people
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Alissa Cooper wrote:
The discussion about blue sheets begs the question: does the IETF (or the
Trust) have a privacy policy? I did a quick look for one but I didn't see one
posted anywhere. If there's a legal entity collecting personal information
(which there obviously
Great idea ... except from my memory, registration might close before the
agenda is firm enough to pick a particular day to attend. Picking the day
needs to be really close to the meeting week for this to be an effective
option.
Dave Morris
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Alexa Morris wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Aug 19, 2009, at 1:36 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
David Morris wrote:
Great idea ... except from my memory, registration might close before
the agenda is firm enough to pick a particular day to attend. Picking
the day
needs to be really close
Me too ... this nicely covers the concerns I've expressed earlier.
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
All of this works for me.
Marshall
On Aug 24, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All;
Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and
constructive
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 07:43:15AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
Yes. I checked Sept 14-18. Try it yourself, I expect you'll get the
same results...
I don't understand why the rate during another period is relevant to
the rate we might get. Remember
conditions for the whole IETF aren't provided.
In this context there is also the potential perceived rules violation from
IETF mailing list content originating outside of China.
David Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Steve Crocker said:
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
The IETF as an organization is mature enough to meet anywhere.
However, IETF participation
To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was no
contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in
arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting.
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Doug Ewell wrote:
Paul Hoffman paul dot hoffman at vpnc dot org wrote:
Take the past two day's of press coverage for ICANN, for example. They are
being lauded for making the domain name system usable in other scripts as
if this was their doing. Nothing in ICANN's press
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Yes, and that is exactly what would happen even if HTTP supported
full two-phase commit, with all of its painful consequences, if the
response to commit was lost. This is an application problem, not
a protocol requirement. It can be fixed (to the
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Should you wish to rent a colocated
server in Germany, Strago AG wishes to inform you that its servers are
powerful, inexpensive and support IPv6 (beta).
They think v6 is not ready for production use?
well, it does say
What is the right way to register for two one day passes? Since the money
comes directly from my personal resources, attending two days for $400
is much better than ~800.
Dave Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
, at 2:06 PM, David Morris wrote:
What is the right way to register for two one day passes? Since the money
comes directly from my personal resources, attending two days for $400
is much better than ~800.
Dave Morris
___
Ietf mailing
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, David Morris wrote:
Well my understanding from prior discussions was that the intent was to
encourage more participation. When R/T airfare is on the order of $140 who
is local is quite different. Etc. For self sponsored
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
