@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I really believe that the construction I have used is acceptable for all
cases. Now I am working on -03 version
of the draft so I'll get known when it will become available.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Hello all,
A new vesrion of draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists is available (-03).
It is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists/
Almost all comments were taken into account.
Any suggestions and comments are welcome.
All the best,
Mykyta
requests. This makes your proposal impossible to
implement.
Secondly, proxies usually do not generate separate requests to HTTP
servers but only pass them through. So this will not make any problems.
Best regards,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
13.12.2010 16:00, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
This draft does
the corresponding changes in the draft ASAP.
I'll let you know when the new version of the draft will be available.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Begin forwarded message:
From: The IESGiesg-secret...@ietf.org
Date: 14 December 2010 12:28:08 AM AEDT
To: IETF-Announceietf-annou...@ietf.org
Mark,
Some notes on what you said:
2010/12/14, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net:
On 15/12/2010, at 2:16 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
Let me explain some issues which were mentioned by Mark.
14.12.2010 2:09, Mark Nottingham wrote:
The use cases for this draft are highly
are still welcome.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
the best,
Mykyta Yevstigeyev
2010/12/15, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized/
Any comments and suggestions are still welcome.
I lack the (discussion around a) use case
Daniel,
You may find some related discussions on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/
dated from Monday, 22 November 2010 and Tuesday, 23 November 2010
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
16.12.2010 12:28, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
the problem and fix it. That is debugging purpose, IMO.
Hope I explained everything clearly.
Any suggestions are welcome.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
16.12.2010 17:46, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Daniel,
You may find some related discussions on
http
mention of that
in the proposal.
Maybe, I'll add something related to this topic.
I'll let you know as soon new version of the draft will be available
(maybe that will be at the end of Last Call).
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Could you please let me know what is your
17.12.2010 16:14, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
What do packets have to do with HTTP headers?
What do you mean? Packets have nothing to do with headers, there is
nothing about this in paragraph above. Maybe you meant middle-boxes?
Read through your
17.12.2010 16:29, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 17.12.2010 15:20, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
In previous version there have been the 'server' and 'client' terms
instead 'host'. However it is obvious for me that there can be as
servers as clients that do not recognize some headers of another side
received during the Last
Call and found appropriate. However any other suggestion are still welcome.
You may feel free to contact me at evniki...@gmail.com for further
information.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
of the
draft near the 10 December and inform you. Any suggestions are still
welcome.
Happy New Year to everybody!
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
P.S. Apologizing if you receive multiple copies of the message. Mykyta.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf
That is FYI. Any comments are welcome. Excuses if you receive multiple
copies of this. Mykyta.
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:52:23 -0800
From: The IESGiesg-secret...@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12.txt (The tn3270
Uniform Resource Identifier Scheme) to
it should be discussed. Moreover, maybe anyone knows
some other old transport-layer protocols that are no longer in use?
Please copy tour answer to ts...@ietf.org
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
06.01.2011 23:45, Doug Ewell wrote:
Lixia Zhanglixia at cs dot ucla dot edu wrote:
PS: on the other hand, what would a historical status imply? the ideas
obsolete?
Every now and then, someone proposes to move a given RFC to Historic,
not merely to reflect an observation that a process or
- indicating the deprecated (but not obsoleted) docs.
Moreover, 'obsoleted' means the same as 'deprecated' or 'non-current'
(see http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/obsolete/ or
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/obsolete/en-en/#synonyms). So it is a
problem in RFC2026.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
Mykyta,
On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport layer
protocols - exactly IRTP (RFC938), RDP (RFC908,1151) and NETBLT (RFC998).
Initially there have been
. The first notices of current
classification system appeared in RFC1370, while this spec is RFC938.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
But none of this is about propriety or neatness or a community OCD
neurosis. It needs to be about pragmatic guidance to the community.
d
.
Thanks,
Amanda Baber
IANA
No changes are intended to be made to the draft during the period up to
14 January in order to allow IESG to review the document.
Looking forward to the opinion of IESG,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
P.S. Apologizing if you receive multiple copies of the message. Mykyta
08.01.2011 10:34, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 08.01.2011 07:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
This document summarizes the Last Call for
draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized.
The Last Call was requested on 11 December, 2010 by Alexey Melnikov and
was announced on 13 November
08.01.2011 17:37, Lixia Zhang wrote:
I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out, without
consultation to any of its original authors, and given the rough consensus on
ietf mailing list discussion is to keep NETBLT RFC as is (experimental).
First of all, I've consulted the
to be the following: the idea in
the current implementation as Internet-Draft does not seem to be
appropriate. So I'll raise this topic later.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
08.01.2011 13:17, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 08.01.2011 11:19, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
If a draft changes three
08.01.2011 18:02, Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
06.01.2011 23:45, Doug Ewell wrote:
Lixia Zhanglixia at cs dot ucla dot edu wrote:
PS: on the other hand, what would a historical status imply? the ideas
obsolete?
Every now and then, someone
08.01.2011 18:12, Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
Mykyta,
On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport layer
protocols
08.01.2011 18:24, Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
08.01.2011 17:37, Lixia Zhang wrote:
I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out, without
consultation to any of its original authors, and given the rough
consensus on ietf mailing
08.01.2011 18:57, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, January 07, 2011 21:26 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have
later been replaced/deprecated.
We assign labels to indicate the
08.01.2011 19:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 08.01.2011 16:58, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
Many LC comments referred to that it would be uninteresting and useless
to implement this. Maybe one of them seems the most interesting for me
- it said about the 'Warning' headers that should be used
08.01.2011 12:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev ?:
07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
Mykyta,
On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport layer
protocols - exactly IRTP (RFC938), RDP (RFC908,1151
, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
You need to explain why these protocols *need* to be moved to
Historic. Such actions are typically reserved for protocols in
current use that are dangerous, or protocols that are in current use
that are being replaced by other protocols. Neither is the case here
11.01.2011 13:36, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Brian F. G. Bidulockbidul...@openss7.org
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyevevniki...@gmail.com
Cc: Bob Hindenbob.hin...@gmail.com;ts...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 9:06 AM
Mykyta,
RDP is still
right, anyway.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
2011/1/12, SM s...@resistor.net:
At 08:29 11-01-11, t.petch wrote:
The provenance of the editor is unknown to
me - and of course, once an RFC has been through the IETF processes,
then the editorship is an irrelevance - but I am concerned that I have
, if posible, and work on it a bit more.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
12.01.2011 22:07, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Almost all registries I'm familiar with explicitly list unassigned
ranges. In some cases, different unassigned subranges have different
allocation policies. For example, there may be a small unassigned
range of lower values requiring Standards Action with
I'm forwarding the OPS-DIR Review of draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12
that is currently in LC to this list. Mykyta
-Original Message-
From: ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of ext Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:07
12.01.2011 14:19, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ops-dir-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of ext Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:07 PM
To: ops-...@ietf.org
Cc:
Hello all,
Let me cite RFC 5226, that says:
...
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values) MUST
provide clear instructions on details of
13.01.2011 13:31, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 10:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello all,
Let me cite RFC 5226, that says:
...
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g
Yevstifeyev
Cheers,
Mehmet
-Original Message-
From: ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev [mailto:evniki...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:58 AM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Fwd: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR Review of
draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-
uri-12
12.01.2011 14:19
13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error to me.
any ranges to be *reserved* for Unassigned...
doesn't make any sense at all. They are not reserved.
Yes, that is a type of error, but the meaning
13.01.2011 18:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 17:08, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
13.01.2011 17:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
That sounds like an editorial error to me.
any ranges to be *reserved* for Unassigned...
doesn't make any
13.01.2011 18:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.01.2011 17:14, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an
existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining
that space (e.g., serving as a repository for registered values
is asked to create the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
Message Types' registry following Section 2 of this document.
6. Other sections: renumber.
I suppose the author will accept my proposal that makes the registry
description more clear.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
are
available for assignment, reserved or not used et al. So I think that
there is just no need to discuss what is clearly set by the document.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
17.01.2011 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com
Hello all,
I am writing to comment draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01, that
is currently in Last Call.
I've noticed that there is no clear definition of the created IANA
regsitry, as defined by RFC 5226. Among other, there is no clear
definition of registry format and initial values. I'd
:?about).
Hello all,
I'd like to agree with the proposition to create the regsitry for
'about' URI tokens That will allow to track what tokens become
'reserved', 'unreserved', etc. simplier.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
But the reality is that the behavior resulting from these URIs is totally
non
and reclassification of docs as Historic
RFCs and discusses other issues connected with this status.
So any comments regarding it are welcome.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
, it does not meet the current practices and view of Internet
Standards.
So I'd like to ask whether making docs to obsolete these standards make
any sense? Or it would be OK just to update the corresponding documents
for DCCP and SCTP?
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
the doc.
Looking forward for the decision of IESG,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Doug,
2011/1/28 Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org
Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail dot com wrote:
I'm writing to request the review of
draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-01, that could be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-01.txt
The document says
saying the registry, created by this document
is underspecified and does not contain clear guidelines for IANA per RFC
5226.
Finally I really do not know why this document has the intended status
'Standrds Track'. It is rather the candidate for BCP.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Best Regards
the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
From Section 2:
Similarly, if a domain name has special properties that affect the
way hardware and software implementations handle the name, which
apply universally regardless of what network the implementation may
be connected to, then that may
Doug, all,
30.01.2011 20:51, Doug Ewell wrote:
Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
I'd like to see some kind of guideline that the RFC should not be
considered obsolete solely because of security or performance concerns
in some particular, specific context. For example, the fact that
vanilla FTP
read:
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registry, IGMP Type
Numbers, per RFC 3228, as for registry update date, for this -
November 2010
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
There was a comment about expanding the term PIM. PIM has now been
added to the list of well-known abbreviations
.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
. Should this continue?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
02.02.2011 23:51, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110,
RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263
- this technology
was eventually defined but revealed itself unacceptable/uninteresting;
further implementations are discouraged
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
04.02.2011 2:00, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins пишет:
Mykyta,
On 3 Feb 2011, at 15:03, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
However I'd like to raise some questions
in the next version of
the draft.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
05.02.2011 0:19, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Geographic Location/Privacy WG
(geopriv) to consider the following document:
- 'Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-based
Location
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments:
Identifies the User in the conference
Thank you in advance for considering my comments.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
19.02.2011 0:34, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Centralized Conferencing WG
(xcon
(mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com).
This section pre-registers the following thirteen initial response
codes as described above inSection 4.1
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp-12#section-4.1:
[ ... ]
Thank you for considering my comments.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
19.02.2011 0:36, The IESG
assignments should be in the range of values from 0x0100 upwards.
The initial entries are as follows:
Here you should have mentioned that values are hexadecimal, for clarity.
Thank you for considering my comments in advance.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
23.02.2011 18:57, The IESG wrote
IETF Discussion mailing list - there is no any appropriate list for
discussion of this document, except this one).
I'm also copying this to Scott Bradner as the author of RFC 2026.
Thank you for your time,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
or revised Internet standard, per
RFC 2026. I'll make this change in my working copy of the draft.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
03.03.2011 13:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:27:21AM +0200, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
2011/3/2, Eliot Learl...@cisco.com:
imprecise. For one, it is hard to observe what is going on on the
Internet, and those who do don't usually share their data (there is
some
that are
known to be problematic.
This is already covered by the 'deprecated' criteria in my draft.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Issuing a declaration for mere non-use is a matter of convenience, not
need, IMO.
d/
03.03.2011 17:11, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
There are, in my opinion, two problems
specifications I worked with
that it can easily take 5 or 10 years for the actual usage (often not
the initially expected usage) for a standards track or experimental
protocol to emerge. So premature declaration taht something is
historic can do actual damage.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
On 3/3/2011 10:28 AM
of this document, and that the document does
not apply to RFCs which pre-date the IETF existence or that were
not published as IETF-track RFCs.
Agreed - I'll make the corresponding changes.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Yours,
Ran
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
/iesg/content/ions.html that does not
seem to exist at all. So my question is: where should I find IONs and
were they published recently at all?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
...@jck.com]
Sent: 06 March 2011 10:32
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'; 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: RE: Where to find IONs?
--On Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:15 + Adrian Farrel
adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg
Hello all,
I've just made the Internet-Draft containing some summary on IONs
experiment available. You may find it here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-00
Any comments and suggestions are welcome.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
06.03.2011 22:11, Brian E
Hello,
2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com:
There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we
can get consensus soon.
Just a couple of remarks on
5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels
1) Probably there should be a statement that all
controller: IESG
Good to add the i...@ietf.org address here.
Thanks for considering my comments in advance.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
16.03.2011 21:13, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Speech Services Control WG
(speechsc) to consider the following document:
- 'Media Resource
.
Any other ideas?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
by this document, Draft Standards SHALL
be reclassified to Historic using the procedure as defined above.
... and renumber the following sections.
What do you think about this proposal?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
14.03.2011 1:32, Russ Housley wrote:
There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward
/2011 11:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Russ, all,
Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
Therefore, I propose the following text:
6. Procedures for Reclassification of Standards Track RFCs
field is not
assigned by IANA? Finally, 0x00 is Unassigned or Reserved?
Thus, this extract needs more clarification.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
26.03.2011 18:33, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Secure PSK
on this document.
Also copying this to Harald Alvestrand, the author of RFC 4693.
Thanks for your time,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
of the IESG.
I can hardly see my comments from 18 March
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65911.html)
considered in -05. Are you planning to make any changes regarding this
in -06?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Toolidsubmiss
2011/4/7, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com:
Mykyta:
If this approach is acceptable to the community, implementation reports will
no longer be needed at all.
In this case your document should obsolete RFC 5657 and mention this.
Mykyta
Russ
On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
? Whether the RFC 3967 procedure
will be used in such cases, or such references are disallowed in
Standards Track docs? I think this should also be mentioned in your draft.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Toolidsubmiss...@ietf.org
Date: April 6
19.04.2011 1:21, Russ Housley wrote:
Mykyta:
4. Downward References Permitted
This section says nothing about references to documents with no status
(pre-IETF RFCs). Maybe informative references to such RFCs should be
allowed. And what about normative ones? Whether the RFC 3967 procedure
for considering my comments.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
28.04.2011 19:01, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
Options'
draft-ietf-mmusic
Magnus,
29.04.2011 11:47, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Thanks for the review.
See inline for response.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev skrev 2011-04-28 19:22:
Hello,
Some comments on this document, currently in Last Call.
Network Working Group M. Westerlund
02.05.2011 11:44, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
Hi,
When the last call has ended I will update the draft with the changes
identified.
Thanks for considering and intention to incorporate my comments.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Mykyta Yevstifeyev skrev 2011-04-29 18:04:
Magnus,
29.04.2011 11:47, Magnus
. Considering this, even though it was planned by RFC 2026 in the
other way, Proposed Standards are actually worth that scrutiny they are
currently given (even though I personally can hardly agree with this
statement).
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator
effort, except rare cases.
There are also some minor defects in this draft, concerning Section 4
mostly; I don't want to mention them now.
So, taking everything into account, I wouldn't like to see this document
approved as BCP. Having a good idea, its realization isn't as good.
Mykyta
[RFC5226].
and adding the normative reference to RFC 5226.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
2011/5/18, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org:
The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'Relay-Supplied DHCP Options'
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6
involvement.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
02.06.2011 22:17, Sean Turner wrote:
The IESG is considering making this statement on the IESG Handling of
Historic status.
We would appreciate community feedback.
Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June.
Thanks
spt
statement begins
RFC 2026
04.06.2011 23:59, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
The proposed statement is mostly fine. But, since RFC 2026 gives
very little information on some issues, I'd like you considered them
in the statement.
First, for RFCs of what categories is it legitimate to move
Please consider these:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2011-June/002518.html
and
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2011-June/002519.html
as Last Call comments. Mykyta.
10.06.2011 16:18, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual
and I-Ds are nothing-as-per-2026. Adopting this proposal
might result in implementators claiming we implement Stable Snapshot
of the Internet-Draft, which is unacceptable, IMO.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
This proposal seems to have the following benefits:
a) It satisfies the two paragraphs above
11.06.2011 10:59, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-11 06:36, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
whereas you propose making I-Ds almost Standards Track. As it was
discussed before, there is an evidence of leaving PSs without any
action/progress; introducing Stable Snapshots there might occur
Stable
to change its
behavior rather than for other apps to do this.
Boris, could you please let me know whether you have some strong opinion
regarding your January comments/insist on incorporating them in the draft.
Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
-Boris
___
Ietf
15.06.2011 13:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-15 11:07, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
2) Section 6 says:
For example, about:blank, about:blan%6B and about:blan%6b
are equivalent
In Gecko they are not. The string after ':' is treated as a literal
string; when looking up a way to handle
:2011 is published. The reference should be corrected.
Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
16.06.2011 16:04, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF
, and are a subject to its normalization rules. Making
an exception for them isn't an option, I think.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
15.06.2011 23:16, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:05:33PM +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
15.06.2011 13:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
That being said, if our Mozilla friends do not want to fix this it
might be a good idea to warn readers that certain implementations
fail
16.06.2011 11:59, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2011-06-15 17:59, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/15/11 5:07 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
The point of this comment is to propose abandoning normalization of
'about' URIs because of some ad hoc behavior of an only application -
Gecko.
No, it's to propose
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
