or otherwise.
I'd suggest the most sensible thing to do is to reclassify both of them
as Informational, to document what you might find in some TXT records,
publish them, and be done with it.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], IRTF ASRG chair
___
Ietf
What exactly do you think needs to be changed with the SPF draft?
If you want to document what people do with SPF now, nothing other
than making it Informational.
If you actually want to do experiments, change the record format so it
won't be confused with Sender-ID or anything else and you can
I hope the message here is not that we should restrict ourselves to
developing technology that is idiot-proof, since a sufficiently
determined idiot, of which there are many, will do idiotic things with
any technology that we never in a million years would have
anticipated.
However, ...
The
is bad, and about a hundred other things and wrap
it all up in about 2014 just as the last e-mail user gives up and
switches to one of three proprietary IM systems.
So can people give me guidance? What problem are we trying to solve
with the danger warnings?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL
Can we also conclude that SSL/TLS has failed as a tool for general
communication?
If we were holding it to the same requirements that some appear to be
asking for DKIM, I think we'd have to.
There is a certain amount of SMTP over TLS, an entirely automated
application, and the net hasn't
Now PDF does qualify but it is basicly an extended version of
PostScript. Since IETF already accepts postscript, the question
should be is there a need for features in PDF that are not
in standard postscript. If there is then we can talk about it.
There is, actually. Postscript is well specified
NeuStar is the .us Registy and has entered into an open root
agreement with the GSMA, supporting the .gprs TLD. That the IETF
pays to host a link to them may certainly be perceived as a
political signal.
Oh, no, not this again. Neustar's .gprs TLD exists only on a special
purpose private
Here is the revised proposed charter text:
Thanks for pulling this together.
If I had unlimited time to waste, I might niggle about a word or two,
but it's fine as is, and I look forward to moving ahead and getting
some work done.
R's,
John
___
Ietf
Roughly we need to consider how DKIM is used, not just define a
technology. We need to talk about bad uses of DKIM as soon as we
are aware that they are sufficinetly likely that they are worth
considering.
Here's a concrete suggestion: it is clear that the bad uses of DKIM
people have
if something like DKIM is successful, I would expect an equilibrium
where filters are set extremely high and nearly all good senders
authenticate their messages because otherwise they stand an
unacceptably high chance of having them rejected.
That seems plausible at some point, maybe five
Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which
of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none.
At some level that's clearly true, since RFCs are emerging at a brisk
clip.
I've seen two different sets of concerns.
One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately
This is NOT the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
You may think that filibustering is normal and appreciated and
democratic. It is not.
This is the core of the issue. The point of this forum is to get work
done. The rules for participation are not hard to figure out, and are
The key phrase here is you are informed. You have to be informed
and agree to it. ...
Can I politely encourage people who are not lawyers to refrain from
expressing legal opinions here, or even worse stating legal opinions
as though they were facts?
I know just enough about copyright law to
Replace Mr. Morfin with Dr. King and see how it sounds.
Have we just discovered a new corollary to Godwin's Law?
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long
stream of consistently productive messages.
We've certainly been made aware of that.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
This statement, The Wyndham is less than a ten minute walk from the
Hilton Anatole. is a bit odd -- at least Maporama prints out the
distance as 22.7 kilometers, 16 mins with a car. Did I do something
wrong?
Whassa matter, 23 km is too far to walk? Wimp.
Visiting Dallas without a car is
Cue ten further emails describing various Google Earth mashups that
correlate restaurants with capacity, wait time and geek acceptability
If we could morph it into a signup system that distributed people
according to restauant capacity and avoided the problem that someone
says I hear there's a
So, in the context of a location that may be considered isolated, I
think it might be useful to consider this an experiment, and judge
the reaction of the community after the meeting towards this
variable.
A reasonable question, but it probably needs to be picked out a little
more than that. For
We propose an experiment based on RFC 3933 allowing, in addition to
ASCII text as a normative input/output format, PDF as an additional
normative output format.
There are a lot of different formats called PDF. There are PDF 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. There's the new PDF/A archival profile along
First and foremost, if the input format is PDF, how will the RFC Editor
edit the document? PDF documents are not editable.
Well, this particular proposal only makes PDF an output format, but
the question is still a good one. Without an editorial process to
create the PDFs, it's not much of an
on this?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf
What is much less clear is the issues surrounding excerpts, or
derivative works. The original query pretty clearly asked/asserted
whether older RFCs were in the public domain. That's pretty far
removed from republication in their entirety.
Actually, what he has in mind is indeed republication in
Walking time from the hotel to the conference site is 6 minutes.
The advantage of the Delta as compared to closer hotels
is that the walk can be done without going outside
Is that important? Are there weather or crime issues?
Depends how hard it's raining.
R's,
John
are important, there are simpler and less risky ways
to accomodate them.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly.
The IESG
Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design
goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite
before producing a reference implementation.
The IETF standards process is already so slow and uncertain that
people throw up their hands in exasperation and go
The Aerobus runs from the airport to the central bus terminal and
costs C$13 OW, $22.75 RT. From the central bus terminal there are
free shuttles to most downtown hotels. The web site tells all:
http://www.autobus.qc.ca/anglais/aeroportuaire_an.html
As far as getting from the hotel to the
If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance
crews.
No problem, they locked out the mechanics union and hired replacements
quite a while ago. While I think there is some chance that you would
show up for a Northwest flight and find that the airline had suddenly
gone out
retrieval from ftp.isi.edu worked just fine. I'm
using the fairly vanilla ftp client that comes with FreeBSD, with no
special switches.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
Hi, will the *.ppt slides be converted again to *.html ?
For the impatient yet theologically pure, OpenOffice 2.0.4 does a
surprisingly good job of importing ppt files and exporting either html
or PDF.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
hacks won't work with DNSSEC, but
we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly
technically.
So, basically, I'm not sure what people are arguing about here. The DNS
of 2006 is not the DNS of 1992. Deal with it, we're not going back.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http
it's white paper #1 near
the bottom of the page.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly
. Tnx.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly.
PS: In case anyone asks, Neustar isn't a party
On the other hand, the Hilton web site just offered me a room for IETF
week at E152 which appears to be the IETF rate, so it's not all that
sold out.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com
I believe there are similar issues for travel to the US --
Right. Any time you are flying to or from the US or to or from the
UK, you can expect the inane rule that liquids must fit in a baggie to
apply.
So if you want that cheap bottle of Scotch to dull the pain of
interminable BOF sessions,
It does appear to be a legitimate attempt at a niche social networking
site targeting networking engineers, but I'm not sure we need one.
If we can't do social networking via existing communication channels
like, you know, e-mail, we're pretty lousy networking engineers.
Regards,
John Levine
Since section 5 Message Submission Authentication/Authorization
Technologies mentions only SMTP AUTH and TLS, does it mean that
authentication by IP addresses is forbidden? I ask so because it is
currently the most common way to weakly authenticate local users. Is
it covered by Depending upon the
subway from Midway to Adams/Wabash.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly
I don't see whay you can't sell your phone number.
You can sell your 800/888/877/866 number, but not your POTS number.
Toll free numbers are more like domain names, in that you have to find
a provider to host it and to put an entry into the DNS-like database
that phone switches consult to decide
Given that paypa1.com was the very first phishing attack I saw, and
that there was a cert...
Really? It belongs to ebay.
But you are quite right, getting an SSL cert is so easy these days that
it's not useful for much. Maybe the green bar certs that are supposed
to be harder to get will help.
people here (scraped off web sites) to whom
I'd just love to make recorded phone calls. Can I use your protocol
to ask them all if it's OK? If not, why not, and how are you going to
stop me?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information
with essentially no false positives, which is true, they don't believe
it.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly
how many of us are now sending with DKIM or Microsoft's scheme? It
might be worthwhile making ietf.org apply a policy to senders that
would recognize normal participants and disallow known spam domains.
Um, spammers haven't sent mail from known spam domains since about
2001. These days spam
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away,
The ICANN meeting a couple of years ago was at the Bayshore, and I
stayed at the Renaissance because the Bayshore was full. When we were
there, the weather was unseasonably severe, with temperatures plunging
below 0 C and snow blown
The descriptions of the venue make clear that, once again, the IETF
is meeting in a ghetto. Periodic bus service doesn't counteract
that.
If you look at the Google map and satellite photos of the venue, there
appears to be quite a lot of residential and commercial development
just east of it.
I'm on the phone to Doubletree reservations trying to make a
reservation for the 9th to the 14th, and she tells me that there are
no rooms in the IETF block on the 13th, ...
She came back and said there are no rooms at the Doubletree at all on the
13th, not at the rack rate or anything. I
at
Hilton to make the block rectangular and have 100 rooms every night,
not just some of them?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom
o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is,
In terms of the number of people, it's tiny. I can only think of
three incorrigibly abusive people that bother the IETF, and even if I
polled everyone here to name candidates, I doubt that I'd run out of
fingers.
On the other hand, the
IPv4-only hosts can see the record even if they can't
directly send mail to that address. and there's no reason
(obvious or otherwise) why a MTA should reject mail from
a host just because that MTA can't directly route to it
Well, other than the practical fact that it's almost
Not to be cynical or anything, but regardless of what we decree, I
think it's vanishingly unlikely that many systems on the public
Internet* will accept mail from a domain with only an record.
I think it's vanishing unlikely that email will be useful at all, if spam
filter writers
But please indulge me --- exactly what is the benefit of deprecating
the A fallback, and/or not doing a lookup on the record if the
MX record doesn't exist?
Under the current setup, any domain that has an A record is presumed
to be a mail domain, and if it's not, there's no good way to
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.
The causality is that its name was
spammed is some
combination of anecdotal and ancient, since it's rather unlikely
that anyone is stealing them in the meeting rooms.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More
* IETF mailing lists MUST provide a mechanism for legitimate technical
participants to bypass moderation, challenge-response, or other techniques
that would interfere with a prompt technical debate on the mailing list
without requiring such participants to receive list traffic.
Here,
than the tiny
effort to update the publishing tools to put it in a header line, but
I also don't see any benefit.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel
which maintains
the POSIX standards. Neither of these groups is related to the IETF.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom
In the case of this draft, have the owners of the identifiers
been contacted by the author, and do they agree to this use?
Perhaps you might want to compare the draft with RFC 2821, which was
published over seven years ago, and then reconsider the question.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED
It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606,
should be either reserved or blocked.
In view of Recommendation 4 in ICANN's new GTLD process document, why
do you think this is necessary?
You have read the report, haven't you?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED
* Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative
* Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized
Ahem:
* Whenever the keywords are used they MUST be capitalized
* Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative
language, even in drafts.
Yes, I
them in line with
modern practice, even changes that are compatible with equally ancient
STD documents.
So, yeah, spam stinks, but it's not going away, and arguments that you
shouldn't use a technique today because it didn't work in 1998 don't
cut it.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary
that's hardly a justification for stupidity.
I entirely agree. Where we evidently don't agree is about what's stupid.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
, since you are concerned about this proposal. Do you think
that recommendations 3, 4, and 20 are adequate to address this
problem? If not, why not?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http
the TLD and its registrants?
Also keep in mind that most of those apex records are in ccTLDs over which
ICANN and the IETF have no authority, so no matter what the we were to
say, they're not going away.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies
problems on its plate, like registrars who steal people's names
and won't give them back. This isn't one of them.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener
The problem is that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not globally unique.
MIT users will have problems talk to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when ai means
Anguilla. The is a current security issue.
If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not longer
mean
Again you are asserting that no one has ever been effected.
No, I'm saying that you can only cry wolf so many times.
The disaster you are predicting has in fact been in progress for over
a decade, and the mountains of casualties are nowhere to be found.
Someone claiming to be you
What will be the impact of having, perhaps,
1) millions of entries in the root servers, and
Let's start by considering thousands of entries, since I see little
reason to expect even that many from ICANN's current plans.
2) constant traffic banging on those servers?
The latest CAIDA
with a few thousand entries
should be well within the capacity of any DNS server.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly
Conversely, if root server traffic is an issue, getting networks to
clean up their DNS traffic would be much more effective than limiting
the number of TLDs.
sounds good. and why wouldn't cleaning up DNS traffic include
refusing to refer any single-label query (for any record type other than
the
selection bias of people whose configuration preferences were set on the
T1 backbone.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for
Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom
Given that problem statement, a simple solution would be for RFCs to
be able to reference art files archived by the RFC Editor using
format-neutral URLs. Initially, those art files could be GIFs, PNGs,
or PDFs. Years from now, when there are no commonly-available readers
for a particular image
Hi. All of these questions have come up before on the various lists
where this draft was developed, but I suppose it's worth going through
them again.
On the other hand, I have a few questions: the first one, why
Proposed standard? Is it really a good idea to standardize these
lists (most being
The IANA Considerations section is missing. I suggest registering
the header as specified in RFC 3864.
We purposely did not make this extensible in this document.
I think you're talking past each other here. I read SM's message
as adding VBR-Info: to the list of known mail header lines here:
standardizing them and formally recommending their use
I'm not aware of any language in the current draft that recommends
that people use DNSBLs. What it does say is that if you use or
publish DNSBLs, here's how they work so you can, you know,
interoperate and all that. As I'm sure everyone is
Today, messages can just disappear on the way to the user's mailbox
(often at or after that last-hop MTA). They do so without NDNs out
of fear of blowback, and they do so for two main reasons. ...
You know, DNSBLs make mystery disappearances less likely, not more.
The DNSBLs that most people
Several years ago, my employer's e-mail spam filter blocked the Unicode
mailing list as a suspect site. Earlier this year, GoDaddy (registrar
of my domain name) did the same, and it took months to figure out what
was going on.
What connection does any of this have to do with DNSBLs? There
Indeed; reputation system for the reputation servers! Of course, if
DNSBL operaters were to find the that shoe was on the other foot, such
that their reputations were getting judged by the same criteria that
sites are declared unclean (i.e., by unauthenticated rumor), ...
Why do you assume that
I've got two separate and unrelated incidents in the last 10 days in
which RBL lists have decided to block some (but not all) of
Comcast's outbound mail servers. ...
I remain baffled by this line of argument.
If anecdotes about DNSBLs not run the way you like disqualify even
describing the
Standard Track and BCP RFCs are part of the IETF document
stream. The proposed IRTF document stream (draft-irtf-rfcs) doesn't
create a new class of documents called IRTF BCPs.
Quite right. That's why we're having the argument here about
draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-08.
Shouldn't the headings of the
That's a rather narrow view. Very large numbers of people think that
Instant Messaging is a far superior alternative to DNSBLs, not to
mention VoIP, web forums and other variations on the theme.
I can certainly believe that there are people who think that, but if
those very large numbers of
I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
development of a protocol for communicating email sender reputation
that can be implemented in email products without known patent
encumbrances that are incompatible with open source software. Email
is simply too important to allow
. Since spamming involves a lot
more outbound than inbound traffic, this still let them use most of
the T1. When the dialup ISP noticed and cancelled the dialup account,
they'd just switch to another one, typically using a stack of free
trial AOL disks.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary
Given that the well known DNSBL causing me grief totally ignores my
requests for removal, ...
I'd be interested in knowing what DNSBL it is. Spamhaus PBL?
MAPS/Trend DUL? SORBS? Something else?
All the anonymous denunciations here are getting a bit tedious.
R's,
John
that. It's certainly a band-aid, but like real life band-aids
it does the job without making things worse and easily enough that
people are actually likely to do it. What you're proposing is a skin
graft, which would be more elegant if it happened, but it won't.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED
For instance, what would happen if mail servers provided feedback to
both senders (on a per message basis in the form of NDNs)
Well, since 95% of all mail is spam, and all the spam has fake return
addresses, you'd increase the amount of bogus NDNs by more than an
order of magnitude. No thanks.
The expectation is that error messages generated from TXT records
contain the actual IP addresses which triggered the DNSBL lookups. As
a result, if you list a /16 (say), you need publish 65,536 different
TXT records.
Some do, some don't. In any event I agree that DNSSEC is not ideally
suited
Nothing personal, but you could hardly ask for a better
illustration.
For one thing, this isn't a case of broken DNSBLs, it's a case of
getting what you asked for.
Rather than using shared DNSBLs, this tiny host on a non-profit public
access network is desperately trying to run its own spam
licenses from as many
old authors or their heirs as it can.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly
us into the swamp of what legal
system we're subject to.
I do have to say that this whole argument seems awfully hypothetical
to me. No sensible person will ever sue for his text being reused
from an RFC, non-sensible people will sue no matter what we do.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com
And, while IANAL, my understanding from what we've been told
repeatedly is that fair use exemption is a US concept, so your
sentence should stop after significant re-use of material
Many other countries have similar doctrines, often called fair
dealing in common law or written as specific
What about senders from small emerging market countries having a very
hard time getting any widely accepted assurance group to vouch for them?
Also in more mature markets, not all of the existing companies and
universities running their own mail servers will be eager to spend
$5000/year on a
If the technology is deployed by 100% of the community providing
professional email operations, both on the sending and the receiving
sides, as Dave expects, ...
I'm not Dave, but I cannot imagine where you got the idea that he
expects the community providing professional email operation to
IIRC, from the previous time, not one person stuck around afterwards
to actually initiate a dialog.
That is my recollection as well. Given the cut and paste errors in
many of the messages, I don't get the impression that our new friends,
polite though they may be, are particularly well informed
is here:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=US2006001342wo=2006081085DISPLAY=STATUS
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly
I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
all interactions?
In Dean's case, yes.
There's a great deal of history here.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite
more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if
traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message
is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call
stage is
The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read
drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments.
It is not clear if you imply that people read more the comments than
the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked.
It doesn't matter whether they read
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign
not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of
tune?
Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an
misleading screed to make the IETF change direction?
From the sample of the FSF letters I
It seems to me that people arguing to establish an IPR Advisory Board
have the better argument.
Well, OK. We're looking forward to the draft describing what such a
board's charter is, how its members are selected and what their
qualifications would be, where its operations fit into the IETF
If the IETF chooses to ignore the FSF, I don't think that strategy will work.
It's worked for the past 20 years. What's different now?
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
1 - 100 of 382 matches
Mail list logo
