Fine with me.
On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Robert Sparks rjspa...@nostrum.com wrote:
On 3/28/13 1:17 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Eric,
At 05:13 28-03-2013, Burger Eric wrote:
Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer
it would be better to say what we mean, like
Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer it
would be better to say what we mean, like:
The IMAP interface MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities that modify the
underlying message and message metadata, such as mailbox, flags, marking for
deletion, etc.
Never say retired: he *is* qualified to be TSV AD.
On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Ralph also served as Nomcom chair 2005-2006 and past chair advisor 2006-2007!
Mary.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I
I think Michael's point is that because a BOF only has two shots, people trying
again do NOT go through the open, advertised process and thus end up with
closed meetings where people are (almost always INADVERTENTLY) not invited. It
would be more open and transparent to have these meetings on
third tier often
have considerably better connectivity than one would expect.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:54 AM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
Let me relate my *EXPERIENCE
I would offer the following:
Rather than look at extremes (e.g., Fred's What about Kabul?), let's
look at other second tier options, like Bangkok, Prague, Cairo (well,
maybe off the radar for the next few months), or Mexico City, to pick
well-connected, well-airported, rather inexpensive, cities
This is exactly what we do in lemonade. We have 1-3 editors, with the
possibility of the cast of thousands authors (contributors).
I would challenge you to find five document that were WRITTEN by more
than 3 editors. I offer five, because I am sure that out of ~5000
RFC's, it is statistically
I would offer that in *some* groups the running code bar is reasonable.
For example, in SIPPING, the problem space is pretty well-defined, and
there are third-party specifications and requirements out there. There
have been way too many half-baked ideas floated for consideration, and
that has
Standard Time
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:18:40 -0400
Burger, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would offer that in *some* groups the running code bar is reasonable
What we do in lemonade is both.
We schedule two 2-hour meetings. The first is for a review of what work
is going on, what issues we are facing, and broad approaches to solving
them. The second is a high-bandwidth working group session, much like
the dreaded interim.
Note that we have also had
Anyone interested in carpooling to Montreal for IETF 66?
I will be leaving the Nashua, NH area around 9am on Sunday, 9 July. My
route will take me by Dartmouth (US I-293 (Manchester) - I-93 - US
I-87). I will have room for 5-6 people. Because it is too complicated
for me to break it out,
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Working Group chartering
Eric,
--- [SNIP ---
-- IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on
-- an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the
-- idea will work. We
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work.
We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working
code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't
work, but then
Full information for the LEMONADE Interim can be found at the
supplemental web page:
http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/lemonade/slides64-5/slides64-5.html
The announcement for the Interim is at:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01948.ht
ml
the entire archives rather easily?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: lemonade@ietf.org; ietf-imapext@imc.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [lemonade] Re
In Vancouver in the lemonade work group meeting a number of people
expressed interest in the creation of a list dedicated to the discussion
of user notification technology.
This list is for discussions relating to the requirements, definition,
and directions for message notifications.
While many
Wouldn't having quasi-authoritative translations *result* in
balkanization? The Chinese National Standard series comes immediately
to mind of authoritative translations *with interpretations*.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JFC (Jefsey)
17 matches
Mail list logo
