At 09:29 AM 12/2/99 -0600, Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
While I think that continuing constructive critical dialogue is essential to
the health of the nation and its government, I also think that acknowledging
the fact that most FBI agents do the very best they can with what they have
is
Thank you very much for your hard work, and that of your committee, in this
years nomination process. You have chosen a slate of which I heartily
approve, and welcome.
At 05:47 PM 1/24/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After much review and deliberation, the following individuals
have been
At 05:45 PM 2/14/00 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Unless you going
to slide the IETF the rest of the way into the ITU/IEEE/ANSI swamp, won't
the mailing lists continue to be the only official forums for the working
groups? Won't the working group meetings continue to be effectively
informal,
At 09:44 PM 2/15/00 -0800, Ian King wrote:
To those of you outside the US who don't think there are enough meetings
outside the US: IF YOU SPONSOR THEM, WE WILL COME. I've seen the open,
standing invitations to sponsor meetings -- so step up and sponsor.
for the record, we have quite a few
At 12:20 PM 2/15/00 -0600, Mart Nurmet wrote:
Keith:
How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the
year?
If you go to the IETF web site, click on "Meetings", and click on "list of
future meetings", you will find a pointer the file
At 02:48 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Costa Sapuntzakis wrote:
Announcement of IP Storage (IPS) proposed working group
---
I have a quick question. Has any Area Director signed up to support this
proposed working group and schedule a BOF? Or are you
At 05:57 PM 3/9/00 +0800, Jianbo Huang wrote:
Dear Sirs and Madams,
A friend of mine are working on the paper on "critically compare the
congestion control on TCP/IP and ATM", and she ask me for help. But I do
not get much idea on the "congestion control on ATM". So, is there anyone
can give
At 03:51 PM 4/8/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
If the IETF engages in routine non-acceptance of "informational" documents
on the basis of non-technical concerns the IETF will, I believe, lose its
clear and loud voice when that voice is most needed to be heard.
That's a valid concern. The
At 02:38 AM 4/9/00 +0100, Martin J.G. Williams wrote:
As far as i'm concerned (IMHO) if the standards bodies were to be driven
by the
vendors, then they would become no more
than sanitised purveyors of de facto standards, and je jure standards would be
relegated to being nothing more than
At 12:44 AM 4/11/00 -0700, Derrell D. Piper wrote:
And there you have the argument for publishing this document. I much prefer a
model where we allow for free exchange of ideas, even bad ones.
hear! hear!
I tend to
believe that if someone took the time to write up a document that there's
At 10:15 AM 5/25/00 -0400, Morrisey Matthew J. wrote:
Where can i find more info?
have you checked www.ietf.org?
At 03:01 PM 8/1/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is an exchange of emails between me and Esther Dyson regarding what her
goals should or should not be regarding her leadership at ICANN.
The IETF is not turning away people who intend to register for ICANN, and
is not in control of ICANN.
At 09:04 PM 7/31/00 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
Do you work, Mr. Bush?
This is an ad hominem statement. Ad hominem attacks have no place on an
engineering list. If you dislike Mr. Bush or have an issue with the work he
does, take that up with him in private. If you have a comment regarding
At 08:00 PM 8/2/00 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
In the US the ground floor is the first floor. So '1' is
very likely to be lit.
There is no "1". That's an "L", for "Lobby".
At 02:59 PM 8/2/00 -0700, tim christensen wrote:
I do not wish to continue being on the general IETF list
but would like to be involved in Mobile IP and other
Mobile security workgroups.
at www.ietf.org, under "working groups", find the Mobile IP charter, etc,
and join their mailing lists.
I
At 07:58 PM 8/2/00 +, Dawson, Peter D wrote:
-And of course, security folks want the buildings to be
-O(2^1024) floors
-high, so that we can see some *useful* primes...
-
- --Steve Bellovin
of course, using the floor factors , as indicated...
this will eliminate all
Coutrsy of Steve Bellovin - Next time someone complains about delays in RFC
publication, consider this...
--- Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 16:35:59 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Bruce Schneier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Friedman Patent
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:21 AM 8/3/00 -0500, Matt Crawford wrote:
Also heard at the IETF: In the plenary session the chair
denied the existence of Ireland.
News to me. Care to give me the context?
At 02:53 PM 8/11/00 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that
the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the
IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to
their "safety" for child access.
I
At 08:00 PM 9/20/00 -0700, dheep vijay b wrote:
It would be of great pleasure if any one could help me finding the
solution for whether " vpn's could be extended for mobile computing" if
so how to go abt.
A VPN is, by my definition, any case where one overlays the global Internet
with
At 02:13 AM 9/29/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
At 09:42 26/09/2000 -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
At 4:09 AM +0200 9/24/00, Fred Baker wrote:
A VPN is, by my definition, any case where one overlays the global
Internet with another private Internet using tunneling. Tunneling
procedures
At 02:43 PM 12/7/00 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Not a valid comparison. Do we have a worldwide, global phonebook that lists
every telephone number on the planet?
yes. we call it "411". If the operator doesn't have the information, s/he
redirects you to someone who does.
Do we have
At 03:49 AM 12/8/00 +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
However, they can't justify to call them internationalization.
precisely.
At 11:54 AM 12/8/00 -1000, Uyeshiro, Robin wrote:
I am evaluating an IP in IP encapsulation technology and would like to know
the average size or size range of an IP Packet, including the 20 byte header.
Can you tell me this or where to find it?
various studies in various places have come up
At 03:24 PM 12/10/00 +0100, Simon Leinen wrote:
The average of the above is generally in the 200-250 bytes per packet
neighborhood, largely due to the predominance of 552 byte segments. If
Path MTU were more widely used - something one would expect to happen
as systems are upgraded over
At 07:58 AM 12/15/00 -0800, Scott Brim wrote:
So, throwing bandwidth at the problem is quite cost-effective in about
85% of the cases, and congestion control is most useful at aggregation
points, say where enterprise networks meet regional networks. It would
seem then, that we should solve the
At 04:57 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Jelena Mirkovic wrote:
Would it not be a nice idea to simply find a hotel with enough number
of big rooms so that everyone who wants can fit in?
I don't know if you are aware of it, but there is a very simple algorithm
for determining what the "conference hotel" will
At 11:03 AM 12/19/00 +0200, Teemu Rinta-aho wrote:
Thank you. That was nice service from Qualcomm, just too
bad there was no information of the wireless coverage
on the meeting web pages.
for the record, apart from Qualcomm's HDR service, the Wireless was Cisco
Aironet.
At 02:19 PM 12/14/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't decided which of the four NAT should be blamed on.
let's be fair. There was an excellent reason for NAT at the time. Postel
suggested that private address spaces could be used rather than assigning
precious IP Address space to
At 02:54 PM 12/14/00 -0500, Tony Dal Santo wrote:
What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"? I realize there is
a PERCEIVED shortage, and this is usually the main motivation for NAT.
But is there a real shortage? Are "reasonable" requests for addresses
being denied?
The way I
At 04:41 PM 12/21/00 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
Unfortunately, the world is not internet-attached. Western Europe is, the
US and Canada are, Australia is, Taiwan has Internet in every public
library (I'm told). It comprises populations in the 1 billion person
ballpark. There are some pretty
At 02:11 AM 12/22/00 +0100, Sean Doran wrote:
an mplsd-like tag fits neatly in the first half of an ipvsux destination
address, although there are other places in the vsux header you can put
tag bits if you're inclined to do so for stacking reasons or whatnot.
actually, I should think the flow
At 07:21 AM 12/22/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Reactions I've heard vary from "their ideas are just too broken for words"
to "what they want can be built easily using DiffServ - this should be a
call for tender, not a standardization proposal".
What they want is, in essence, to know that
At 07:36 AM 12/22/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Sometimes presentations are good. If they leave plenty of time to talk
about them.
OK, but let's talk about that. Presentations should open and guide
discussion: present the issues that need to be hashed out, propose and
explain approaches,
At 08:17 AM 1/12/01 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
The root servers MAY put
the root zone up for ftp or other access on one or more less
critical servers.
not that I plan to do it, but is there such an FTP site?
At 10:30 PM 2/6/2001 +0800, Jun'an Gao wrote:
So transport layer should somehow enhance
the error check and/or correction mechanism.
actually, I would put it in the application layer. I would have the
application include some form of checksum (PGP signature, file CRC,
whatever) to ensure
At 11:51 AM 3/8/2001 +0900, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
Questions. Is it a good tradition to form a 'design team' in a WG and to
let that group design something excluding the rest of the WG, and to
accept the design result as a WG official opinion ?
Design teams are a solution (not the only possible
At 02:16 PM 3/12/2001 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:
however the editor queue can hold things for a very long time, and not
just due to waiting for an author to fix something. (gosh. we haven't
discussed THIS topic in a couple of years...)
the most common hold-up that I see is a wait for
There has been some concern over the scope of the IETF sub-IP effort. This
is an attempt to help clarify the view of the IESG on a number of issues.
RFC 2026 defines the Internet as:
"a loosely-organized international collaboration of
autonomous, interconnected
networks,
At 04:48 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, Hagop Karaoghlanian wrote:
Hi there, I agree with Margaret on this topic, and being about 2 weeks old
with the organization, for the record I haven't jumped into a discussion
until now. It is a little overwhelming to say the least to jump into an
"open" discussion
At 06:05 PM 10/18/2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
What I think is a real shame is that ICANN might be mistakenly
considered by some people to to be a monument to Jon Postel...
with all due respect, would you mind if I spent a few minutes thinking
about Jon, the good things he did and left, and the
At 11:56 PM 9/19/2001, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
If a statement has the requirement level of 'MUST NOT' while it has an
exceptional case, and while
the exceptional case does not elucidate its requirement level, what is the
appropriate requirement level of this exceptional case ?
in such a case, I
At 04:05 PM 11/27/2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
You'd think that an ISP, cable-company or not, would tend to charge by
volume or
connection time rather than the number of IP addresses in use.
dumb question.
I see a longish thread about so why does one need IPv6, there is in fact
no shortage
At 01:57 PM 11/28/2001, Charles Adams wrote:
This may be the wrong time to interject this, but I know of a local cable
company that requires you to register a single MAC address.
mine does that. I gave them the mac address of my router.
At 02:48 AM 10/5/2001, xiaolee wrote:
is there any mechanism in the PPP issues to implement QOS?
One could implement diffserv on such an interface.
What are you looking for?
At 12:13 PM 10/10/2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Unlike CALEA, there are no provisions for reimbursing ISPs for these
expenses -- tens of thousands of dollars could bankrupt many ISPs.
This is an attack on both civil liberties and small business.
I agree that our legislators are not
At 07:47 PM 12/4/2001, Mareline Sheldon wrote:
But how to get it up the TCP stack to port 179.
since this is your own little world, you don't have to use the same
transport. Use reliable multicast in some form. An example of such recently
went to Proposed Standard:
PGM Reliable
At 08:45 PM 12/13/2001, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote:
This brings up another question: why are email addresses collected on the
blue sheets?
after a BOF that I chair, I generally get the blue sheet from the
Secretariat and make sure the email addresses are on the relevant mailer.
At 09:15 AM 12/14/2001, John Stracke wrote:
(I'm assuming here that the Secretariat currently types up the names from
blue sheets, and that scanning the cards would be easier. If not, then
forget it; this isn't worth giving them extra work.)
no. The reason the blue sheets are maintained are in
At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote:
If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday
night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help.
I'd be curious to know what would define using Friday seriously. We do
usually put meetings on Friday which also have a
At 03:13 PM 4/5/2002, Matt Crawford wrote:
I think that (A) most or all extant IPv4 routers violate 791
if they happen hold a packet more than a second, and (B) IPv6
invalidated TCP's correctness by defining the Hop Limit field to be a
hop limit and have no connection to time. A TCP riding on
At 10:27 PM 6/7/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) DNS has to be *FAST*, especially at the root - we're talking on the
order of 200K queries a *SECOND*. You figure out how to do that while
also tossing certificates around, let us know...
I must be missing something. As far as I know, the
For the record, I'm sitting at this instant in Tokyo Station, and am on my
way from Narita to Yokohama. I am sitting in the green car, and I accessed
the appropriate web page.
I have wonderful 802.11 connectivity, and I have an IP address. Whether
that means I can use the Internet is another
At 07:43 AM 7/14/2002 +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
it is a problem of a plain old telephone system so called 3G.
the point is well taken, and is what we decided on the train as well.
At 06:25 PM 7/23/2002 +0200, Kai Kretschmann wrote:
what further way goes a submitted and published internet draft after a
short period of discussion?
That largely depends on you. If it goes into a working group, it becomes a
working group document which you might be the editor of or a
At 05:06 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
There is no strict, formal, official distinction between packet or
datagram. The tendency is to use packet for referring to the
lower-levels, and datagram at the higher. But how high or how low?
I'll disagree with that. A packet is a unit of
At 05:44 PM 9/24/2002 +0200, TOMSON ERIC wrote:
Last, while I definitely, clearly prefer calling Layer 2 data units
FRAMES, I sometimes [over-]simplify the terminology of Layer 3 by making
the following distinction : a datagram is the data unit before
fragmentation ; a packet is a piece of a
At 01:12 PM 9/25/2002 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
A datagram is self-describing; full source and destination. A fragment
(IPv4 fragment) may not be.
you sure? take a GOOD look at RFC 791... It is completely self-describing
in terms of getting itself there and where it belongs in the reassembled
At 12:35 PM 9/26/2002 -0500, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
However, in the de facto world of merged L3/L4 routing
(with NATs, load balancers, etc.) it is dependent on state
information and hence is not a datagram.
any interconnection is an end station issue; the only router that cares
about it is the
At 07:39 AM 11/26/2002 -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
The list admin should add the unsubscribed address to the
list of known email addresses. See item 5 in:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt
that's one of the list admin's options. But it turns out that many list
At 11:57 AM 11/26/2002 -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
Anyways, if the admin really considers it impolite (I don't), then
maybe that admin should send the user an opt-in (or opt-out) notice
before (or after) adding the user to the pre-approved list of
posters.
How does that differ from what was
At 11:50 AM 11/27/2002 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to
say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a
separate 'bounced' list.
Sounds good on the surface, but you might want to
At 08:28 AM 12/2/2002 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The only way to resolve this issue properly would be to require every
submission to an IETF mailing list to be cryptographically signed (PGP
or S/MIME), to require the subscribers to register their signing key and
to then filter the mail
At 11:15 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the
CALSCH WG decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore
the fact that the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in
getting the best possible
At 01:38 PM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had an majority that
wished the area to continue, at least for the time being. I don't want
that to be ignored, or dismissed as just the choir's opinion.
I don't believe it is being ignored.
From your draft IESG Charter:
Network Working Group
40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study
packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working
Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research
Group, and the rest of the
At 01:27 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, Bob Braden wrote:
The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself.
I started to reply saying that, but I think he's referring to a pointer to
the working group's discussions.
Personally, if I were to do anything like that, I would point to the
working
At 11:11 AM 3/20/2003 -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
give everyone who shows up at an IETF meeting one token, good for 6 months.
require 10 tokens to submit an internet-draft.
the point of posting the draft is to have the discussion you're proposing.
What happens in some quarters, as you
At 05:50 PM 3/25/2003 -0500, S Woodside wrote:
In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an H.323
connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends and
immediately concluded that people on any kind of wireless mesh that uses
NAT are going to be severely
At 10:14 PM 3/26/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Seeing that route filtering only gets done automaticaly for
the last couple of years and the fact that that is only a
route + ASN mapping I don't see why all of a sudden there
will be some magical solution for renumbering complete networks.
Really?
At 02:37 PM 3/26/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
What do you do for:
- Route-maps.
- Prefix-lists.
- Access-lists.
Those fall under configure the router... Yes, things one does that use
prefixes are going to have to be reconfigured using prefixes.
- Firewall configs.
A firewall is either an
At 02:05 PM 7/16/2003 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
The last time I saw a comparision of checksum algorithm strengths was back
in the OSI days when the IP checksum was compared to the OSI Fletcher
checksum (my memory is that the IP checksum came in second.)
um, well, it was certainly behind the
At 08:09 AM 10/10/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Removing a feature from a specification doesn't even prevent people from
using it
I'm changing the thread subject. While this is relevant to the subject of
Tony's appeal, it is also a general debate orthogonal to Tony's appeal. It
is a side note
At 03:38 PM 10/10/2003, Dave Crocker wrote:
A different problem, of course, is having one group claim that another
doesn't know what it is talking about. For example, the idea that an
operator could claim that a vendor to operators has no understanding of
operations, is a bit strange.
Actually,
At 12:55 PM 10/10/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All in all, however, I think outright removal, although short-term more
painful, will be less troublesome than many years of debugging problems
caused by 1918-style leakage of addresses for a deprecated feature.
That may be so. It is a third
At 02:30 PM 10/10/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:
With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both camps
(for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly from
the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
themselves. ... snip
Been there. Done
At 03:03 PM 10/10/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred, I hope that this resolves your technical concern about
this particular case, and I apologize for not making this
distinction clear in my response to Scott.
yes, it does.
In this case, I was responding to an increase in the complexity of the
Wawa:
Is this a relay of a question from the ISDF list to the IETF list? I don't
seem to have the context of the conversation.
I gather that the question has something to do with the management of RFCs.
It would be good to read the discussion at http://www.rfc-editor.org/ for
what the RFC
At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
Could it not be useful to have a List of Comments (LOC) for each RFC?
Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could
be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experience and questions
received.
These are usually found in the form
/2004, jfcm wrote:
At 00:37 09/01/04, Fred Baker wrote:
At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
Could it not be useful to have a List of Comments (LOC) for each RFC?
Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could
be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experience
The secretariat sent a note to ietf-announce this morning, which I mostly
consider a step forward - internet drafts will be aged out 185 days after
their original posting barring certain procedural caveats such as being on
a list waiting to be published.
I wonder what thoughts people have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 04:26 AM 1/17/2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and
timely standards for the Internet.
I think I would state it in these words:
The Internet Engineering Task Force provides a forum for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good grief.
I don't know that we're changing anything in what the IETF does. What is
happening is that the IETF is growing up and taking control of its own
destiny in a variety of ways, and trying to clean up its own processes. In
all the *other*
At 12:46 PM 1/29/2004, Leslie Daigle wrote:
I'd like to come back to this point, and try a slightly different direction:
Fred Baker wrote:
The purpose of the IETF is to create high quality, relevant, and timely
standards for the Internet.
I think I would state it in these words:
The Internet
At 11:07 PM 1/29/2004, jfcm wrote:
This puts free softwares and new generation networks out of its scope.
They are Research from what I understand. Why not?
I don't think the IETF tells people how to charge; the software can be free
or not. I don't think the IETF cares, and I don't know that
?
/=/
| Fred Baker |1121 Via Del Rey |
| Cisco Fellow |Santa Barbara, California |
++93117 USA |
| Nothing will ever be attempted,| phone: +1-408-526-4257 |
| if all
At 09:51 PM 07/21/04 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
New survey question: How many lunches and dinners did you have at the last
IETF that were NOT meetings?
For me, it is rare to have meals that are not meetings of some sort. And I
often have face-to-face editing sessions on IETF
At 09:28 PM 07/21/04 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Any experiences? Is 1.5 or 2 hours (for example) enough at SD?
Any time *I* have been through either CLD or SAN, 90 minutes has been quite
sufficient, and 60 minutes is usually enough for domestic travellers. If I
were checking in at LAX for an
At 08:55 AM 07/22/04 -0400, Soliman Hesham wrote:
Try to get a direct flight or through San Francisco.
I hear that. But (west coast perspective...) I avoid SFO like the plague.
When fog sets in, they shut down one runway, and flights throughout the US
get delayed. And what is San Francisco
At 10:55 AM 07/22/04 -0700, Aaron Falk wrote:
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the IETF
meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria for
what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even nudge
groups into making some
At 04:29 PM 08/17/04 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Why is the list of internet standards so hard to find?
I dunno. I tend to look for the most recent one in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc-index.txt. The most recent one I find is
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3700.txt.
Or, alternatively, I have a
At 06:55 AM 09/02/04 -0700, Carl Malamud wrote:
Perceptions are always important. Under Scenario's A and B, likewise,
the Internet Society probably gets to be a target.
The ISOC is a target anyway, as the RFCs have a copyright notice in them
with ISOC's name in it.
additional layers. As you said, the IETF's appointees to the
ISOC board function first and foremost as ISOC board members, not as
IETF's representatives. This is the same for all the board members.
The IETF appointees to the board have functioned extremely well on
behalf of ISOC. Indeed, Fred Baker
At 08:09 PM 09/07/04 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Scenario B includes the MOU mechanism as one of the choices for defining a
relationship between ISOC and the IETF.
for the record, I think the relationship between ISOC and IETF needs to be
stated in any case. We have RFC 2031 now, but it is
At 10:19 AM 11/05/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I'm stepping down as IETF chair in March, and I am not a candidate for
reappointment.
It's been a great four years, containing lots of learning experience, lots
of hard work and lots of joy - but after four years as IETF chair, and ten
At 09:36 AM 11/15/04 -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
The protocol distribution is different now, though still not showing much
SMTP compared to HTTP, etc.
:^)
Like any other internet link, it changes from millisecond to millisecond.
large components tend to include tcp-other, http, and so on.
It
At 01:33 PM 11/15/04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm.. what *exactly* is upstream of that interface? I strongly suspect
that it's *heavily* influenced by *local* preferences/configuration.
:^)
Care to speculate on the existence of any measurement point in the internet
that is not heavily
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
rather than an accrual
basis, this section seems maximize the pain they cause.
I wonder whether the IETF would consider talking with ISOC's accounting
office to normalize these issues now, and whether the problem really needs
to be this tightly constrained?
Regards,
Fred Baker
1 - 100 of 445 matches
Mail list logo
