http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/?
The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government | IGP Blog
I'm not quite sure I read the
On Sep 20, 2013, at 13:38, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote:
2) Are there documents you find non-readable?
I'm not sure you aren't mocking us, but...
*Yes*, there are documents in the IETF that are highly non-accessible.
I could name examples from areas other than security,
On Sep 17, 2013, at 19:37, Michael Tuexen michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de
wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.
+1.
(Remarkably, all the RFCs I co-authored show the same email
On Sep 13, 2013, at 16:56, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
* Added the Further Consideration section based on discussion on the
mailinglist.
I believe the current document is fine for a major part of the IETF standards
activities.
It is, however, important to keep in mind that the
On Sep 13, 2013, at 20:50, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
I am trying to see what one gets if one translates the fallacies into
positive actions, or answer the question on how do you cope with the fallacy.
I notice that your draft observes but doesn't seem to recommend.
Indeed, the
On Sep 9, 2013, at 17:44, Pierre Thierry pie...@nothos.net wrote:
Carsten,
in draft-bormann-cbor-05, you mention that The format must be
applicable to (…) high-volume applications. in section 1.1.
Do you already have a benchmark in place to measure the volume that a
CBOR implementation
On Aug 22, 2013, at 21:23, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Most Excellent(tm)
shepherd report:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis/shepherdwriteup/
(This may not have helped much in this case, but:)
Why is it that IETF last-calls do not contain a direct
On Aug 19, 2013, at 11:08, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
sharing
CBOR and JSON have in common that their data model is based on trees.
A number of other data representation formats generalize this model to
(directed, usually connected) graphs.
E.g., as you say YAML has ways to explicitly
But tag 24 makes it harder for pedantic security devices to validate CBOR,
somewhat like an eval statement.
Well, eval is Turing-equivalent, while tag 24 has quite narrow semantics.
So the added onus should be much more limited.
Is a strict mode decoder required to decode/validate the
This was a rather productive IETF Last Call!
Thank you all for the many comments.
Paul and I have taken your comments and believe that we have
incorporated the ones that we said we would.
The -05 has just been published:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-05
... and there are
On Aug 14, 2013, at 13:40, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR.
so what does that say about yang, yang's suitability for netconf, cbor,
and cbor's suitability?
Good question. I'm not sure the jury is even out on that yet.
Yaron reminded me that netconf
On Aug 13, 2013, at 13:14, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
MessagePack is simpler so will need even less code
FWIW, earlier today I had a nice afternoon with the msgpack-ruby C code,
converting it to encoding and decoding CBOR instead.
Saved ~ 250 lines of C code.
Of course, I'm filling in
On Aug 13, 2013, at 13:14, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Type tags don't really need to
be part of the serialization format: they can be encoded in a simpler
format by the application.
Yes, and we also can get rid of maps {a: 1, b: 2}.
Just represent them as arrays of two-element arrays
On Aug 10, 2013, at 08:46, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
If we foresee multiple solutions being published for this problem space,
which is what I'm hearing, then Experimental is the better choice.
By that argument, TCP and UDP should be Experimental, too -- they are both in
the
1. I haven’t seen any particularly convincing evidence that CBOR would, in
production, achieve any meaningful reductions in serialization time or
deserialization time or code footprint or memory footprint.
I'm not sure relative to what you want to see that reduction.
But let me give you a
On Jul 30, 2013, at 09:05, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote:
What would cause this to be tragic, is if publication of this were
used to prevent other work in this area from subsequently being
published.
Indeed.
As Paul and I have repeatedly said, CBOR is not trying to be the
On Aug 6, 2013, at 21:45, Joe Hildebrand hil...@cursive.net wrote:
On 8/6/13 1:11 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
If a CBOR application does require initial signature bytes for
self-description purposes, I would suggest using something like
0xd8 0xf8 ...data item...
which
On Aug 4, 2013, at 22:11, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were
thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19%
German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said
that about half of that is likely
2) No support for tag compression.
(I assume this was about map keys, not about tags.)
That's an interesting requirement, and one that I think could be added to
the design if there were others that felt motivated to help. I think I
can see a way that it could be added later: create a new
On Aug 2, 2013, at 12:58, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Venue was great, food options here and in the city were great, all-around
great experience. Let's come again!
I'm a big fan of Prague, but I agree that that has now got a rival.
The venue for this meeting was very productive, with
Well, one of the BOFs is for 6Lo, which is meant to replace a WG (6LoWPAN) that
is closing.
So make that 14 potential new WGs, but it is still a large number indeed.
(Actually, not all BOF descriptions are entirely explicit about the desire to
have a new WG as an outcome...)
Grüße, Carsten
On Jun 11, 2013, at 13:17, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
We have to know, not that you have read the document, but that you have
-understood- it.
Process experiment:
end all Internet-Drafts with a multiple-choice test.
Grüße, Carsten
Wow, that's real science at work...
Sorting by the relevant column (I don't own a private jet):
LHR 249:44 // London
FRA 255:22 // Frankfurt
SFO 282:04 // San Francisco
FCO 283:04 // Rome
SVO 287:14 // Moscow
ATL 297:28 // Atlanta
BOS 297:38 // Boston
NRT 314:38 // Tokyo
On May 31, 2013, at 16:53, Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
co-authoring with folks outside their region.
Very good point.
Significant advantage comes from any kind of co-authoring with someone who is
able to bring another perspective. By region, by academic/commercial
On May 2, 2013, at 07:21, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Yeah, all kinds of issues, but if we created a new thing here in between WGLC
and PS, the broader industry would never understand.
That is a matter of naming and marketing (candidate RFC?).
The this is baked, go and implement it
On May 3, 2013, at 01:13, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
source control
I don't think it has been emphasized enough how important that is from a
document quality perspective.
More importantly for this discussion, it also somewhat mitigates the document
editor as a choking point.
On May 1, 2013, at 18:33, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
we need to create a new category of document which
amounts to fully baked ID
Yes. (I'm not sure it's a category, it might just be a stage.)
There is a stage in the development of a protocol where I no longer want to
On May 1, 2013, at 20:11, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
It's what PS *ought* to have been, and what RFCs were prior to
1990 or so.
One problem is certainly the cognitive barrier imposed by the RFC process.
-- RFCs never change, so you want to get them right;
-- there is a
On Apr 18, 2013, at 17:17, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote:
Why is this a problem?
I think you are more likely to ask this question if you think that if it is a
problem, then we *have* to solve it, e.g. by shooting enough of the white
male people in the IETF that the numbers balance.
Michael,
thank you for this thoughtful and extensive review.
We have turned nine of the items below into eight tickets, #287 to
#294 (see in-line references below), that will be processed along with
the other IETF last-call tickets and turned into
draft-ietf-core-coap-15 in the next few days.
Jari,
this is great news. A design team approach may be able to collect
information and generate ideas and actionable points in a way that
works much better than ranting on the IETF list.
The most important insight is that diversity is not a problem that
can be fixed by some set of measures,
On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:26, David Kessens david.kess...@nsn.com wrote:
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF about diversity.
Is it just me or is the liaison manager for the politically tempestuous ITU-T
relationship really about the worst possible position to exercise this
Hi Shoichi,
On Mar 19, 2013, at 01:55, Shoichi Sakane sak...@tanu.org wrote:
And, the length of URI is likely to be bigger than the MTU.
Do you assume a use case in which the total length of options is going
to be greater than the MTU ?
CoAP has been designed for constrained devices, and
Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments
sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are
fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between.
Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want
to list in the
On Mar 25, 2013, at 15:38, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG
consensus as the authors' street addresses.
Disagree. WG documents are WG documents. If the author/editor doesn't want to
do what the WG consensus
On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:22, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get
an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting.
I want my badge on a shiny embossed metal plate with the words protocol
police on it.
Where
I wouldn't mind replacing my blue dot with an indication *what* WG I chair, and
in which area that is.
Might be a bit more logistics when chairs change, but nothing that can't be
solved with a DYMO labelmaker.
Grüße, Carsten
On Mar 12, 2013, at 17:03, Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com wrote:
a wiki-like inline markup language
Well, actually it uses markdown, which seems to have a rather large penetration
when it comes to writing-oriented markup.
If you want to use markdown for collaborating on RFC-style
On Mar 7, 2013, at 07:55, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
Really ? You don't think a good AD should primarily look for factual evidence
(lab, simulation, interop, ..) results produced by others to judge whether
sufficient work was done to proof that the known entry critera are met
for six weeks a year.
Grüße, Carsten
PS.: (If that sounds like I'm contradicting myself that's only because we
haven't found the right solution yet.)
On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:49, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
routing around
On Mar 5, 2013, at 18:58, Bob Braden bra...@isi.edu wrote:
Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol at
the application layer is generally a Bad Idea. Why do the same bad ideas keep
being reinvented?
Because we don't have a good selection of transport protocols
On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
routing around obstacles
It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting in time.
That is actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior of
people.
Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could
On Feb 25, 2013, at 17:33, jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
A tools-login required for posting comments?
In a ~ 20-year IETFer, it evokes a bit of a smirk to see the IETF now starting
to define its social media strategy...
The answer to the question depends on whether you want to engage IETFers
On Jan 24, 2013, at 04:41, wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start
This is my last comment on the CRLF issue, which I just used as the
(for me) obvious example for what I was trying to say.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 02:20, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Oh, my. This is getting to be interesting. I had no direct
interaction with or insight into the ASA
On Jan 23, 2013, at 20:56, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
But having CR as an unambiguous return to first
character position on line was important for overstriking
(especially underlining) on a number of devices including line
printers as well as TTY equipment.
But John, on a TTY,
On Jan 22, 2013, at 08:05, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
why you're specifically requesting implementations in C
I think his argument is that the spec author should be punished for each piece
of fluff in the spec.
A sentiment that I can relate to.
Having to write C code
For those who wonder what all the fuzz in this thread is about, let me try to
explain this with some different terminology, exposing what kind of intuition
these widely diverging value judgements might derive from.
In programming, there are two camps: static typers and dynamic typers. Static
On Dec 3, 2012, at 15:25, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
But code that's written as part of a rote process, just to achieve
another check-box on the shepherd writeup and justify special handling
is not likely to provide any of those benefits.
+1.
As somebody who tends to think
On Nov 15, 2012, at 17:04, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I'm saying that your point lacks an empirical basis
Yes.
I'm not even arguing that the IETF spend effort on obtaining that empirical
basis (hint: there is probably a great PhD thesis in organizational marketing
waiting to be
On Nov 12, 2012, at 19:09, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Some people believe that the presence of an IETF meeting serves as a kind of
recruitment marketing to a region, for IETF participation. Beyond the
single-meeting boost in 'local' attendance, I believe we have no data
On Nov 14, 2012, at 20:59, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
(Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
gaining local mindshare and relevance.
I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language. But I
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into
force.
I'm still amazed at the number of messages the resolution of this issue has
generated.
There
On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new
On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
_punitive_
Again, you are confused.
This action is not about punishing an individual, and I would be violently
opposed to it if it were.
This is my last message on this.
I'm repulsed by the idea of discussing this under this
On Oct 24, 2012, at 06:20, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
WHATWGRL
Hey, call them EARLs. Error-tolerant web-Address Repairing Labels or whatever.
(Just not URLs, that term is already taken in the Web.)
Grüße, Carsten
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
stuff that's utterly incompressible
In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot.
(SCNR. I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this
point, anyway.)
Grüße, Carsten
On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:22, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time
had been expired for a year.
The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be).
Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file
On Sep 20, 2012, at 18:49, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I personally don't consider it very likely that someone would
actually sue or convince some appropriate prosecutor to come
after us. But, however one assesses the likelihood of that
happening and of that party winning, I
On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to
the community.
Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm interested in.
Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or one
On Sep 11, 2012, at 15:10, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion,
I'm not privy to the circumstances that caused the original proposal to come up.
Maybe the reason was that the IESG *wants* its hands bound so there is no
further need
On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:46, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
If someone wants to provide guidance on how to do a least bad job
with Outlook, that will be gratefully received.
I'm not an expert for this, but, as far as I am aware of, it has not been
possible to
On Sep 8, 2012, at 13:02, Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.com wrote:
Keeping I-D's around forever is incredibly important form a historical,
technical, and legal perspective. They people understand how we work, think,
and develop protocols (history). They help people what was tried and
On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
transferred by government decree to a secretive
agency of
On Aug 13, 2012, at 04:58, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
Why is it useful?
Because it elicits considered reactions like yours and Mike StJohns', and
allows us to make explicit and affirm the (rough) consensus that we seem to
share about the role and purview of our
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with
Randy Bush:
On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote:
singing this statement is the right thing to do
For 0.29 seconds, I imagined you in front of a microphone in a recording
studio, singing Modern Global Standards Paradigm to the tune of All the
young dudes. For 0.29 seconds...
On Aug 8, 2012, at 22:38, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
If you've never had the time to watch a Meetecho session recording,
OMG, was the audio recovered from air bubbling up from a submarine or what
happened?
Oh, and maybe somebody can explain the value of the audio spectrum
On Aug 9, 2012, at 00:37, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
It's surely not perfect, but given the technology being used, it's certainly
good enough
I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, and the audio simply needs to be
better to be legible for my ears.
With Audio Hijack
On Aug 6, 2012, at 16:41, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best
choice IMHO.
+1 a lot.
(If we indeed have to choose the US.)
Great facility to get work done, good food, reasonable flights.
And add Prague as
Not yet quite optimal for e.g. RFC 3095:
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/citation/?doc=3095template=%7Bauthors.andlist%7D%2C+%22%7Bdoctitle%7D%2C%22+%7Bdocname%7D%2C+%7Bdate%3A%25B+%25Y.%7Dsubmit=Generate+citation
Grüße, Carsten
On Jul 23, 2012, at 14:28, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
you need to take into account at least both the Friday and Monday in some
countries.
+1
In much of Europe, the Easter holidays run from Good Friday to Easter Monday,
and exhibit
-- strong travel activity
-- zero to reduced opening times
On Jul 22, 2012, at 21:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
IETF volunteers will not be paid from these fees.
I've been following this discussion only with one ear, but, I can't figure out
why somebody would volunteer to do this.
Grüße, Carsten
On May 24, 2012, at 16:12, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
For what it is worth, here is my opinion on this subject (which I was
asked to post here).
I see possible privacy law problems with posting the blue sheets, so
I would not.
I see a good reason to scan and have images of new blue sheets,
On May 19, 2012, at 08:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Very seriously - after all that has been said on this thread, I see
no reason to change anything.
+1
This is one of those issues that is best addressed by *awareness*, not by new
rules.
Grüße, Carsten
On Apr 27, 2012, at 16:41, Yoav Nir wrote:
Before 19502.9%
1950 - 1960 16.6%
1961 - 1970 33.7%
1971 - 1980 32.8%
After 198014.0%
Nice bell curve, יואב, but you can't pop that soap bubble of perception with
the bluntness of raw data :-)
Maybe just the areas where PHB
Hi Don,
thanks for the feedback.
link-format has been essentially stable for the better part of a year now (as
the result of dispatching of the comments on the first WGLC in -03, IIRC). It
has been used in a number of informal interop events, and the feedback always
was that it did its job
On Feb 16, 2012, at 19:52, Don Sturek wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Somehow, luck is not how I would have described the process.
I think if you thought it important enough to do a WGLC in November 2011,
you maybe should have made it for longer than a week
I did.
and avoided the US
Thanksgiving
It is mostly straightforward to obtain markdown format from an existing RFC or
similar formatted text, and I have used this to manually compile input from
various sources into one I-D.
Doing this in a fully automatic way would probably need some more heuristics,
e.g., for cross-reference
On Oct 29, 2011, at 12:58, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Pandoc that in combination with Make and XSLT scripting to can produce
internet-drafts in XML format
Nice!
There also is kramdown-rfc2629.
See the example at https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 (the stupid.mkd
there is the source for an
On Aug 9, 2011, at 20:30, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
We worry too little about the opportunity cost of the passage of time, so we
fight time-consuming battles. We should instead be trying to build an
optimal pipeline of incremental progress in a generally positive direction,
On Jun 20, 2011, at 15:31, Cullen Jennings wrote:
This is all a sort of confusing point of many IETF documents and not unique
to this one. I think the important points is that for many IETF documents,
the people listed on the front page are not the authors. Typically the list
of authors is
On Feb 15, 2011, at 21:46, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
(readable E-Mail)
How did you manage to get Apple Mail to properly use RFC 3676, i.e.
; Format=flowed; DelSp=yes
on the Content-Type? Apple broke that in 10.6, IIRC.
(Not that solving this problem on the sender side would solve it for
On Jan 27, 2011, at 09:52, Lars Eggert wrote:
all new protocols should
be security-capable
Sure.
How is this relevant?
In some protocols, there is value to use them without communication security
(think TLS) for some applications, and with communication security for others.
We used to
But while we're at the topic of *running* xml2rfc: I always advise people to
run it locally;
One problem is that the default way of doing references in RFC 2629 XML
appears to perform an online fetch of the reference information for each build,
with no caching whatsoever. If you do have to
Yes, that's why I always recommend not to use that style.
But hardwiring the references in the XML leads to manual updating (and
forgetting that).
Having a tool for that is useful here (which is why kramdown-rfc2629 does this).
BTW, if you are on a Mac, get one of the package managers
OK Jordi, you fell victim to a marketing site.
I've got some news for you: Not every site on the Web has accurate information.
Let me explain how that works. Something new comes along (say, a new train
service) and marketing material (a web site) is generated. Some budget is set
aside. The
On Jul 30, 2010, at 14:54, Jari Arkko wrote:
people consistently referring to the meetings as BOFs,
The fix is to call the formal working group formation planning meetings
working group formation planning meetings, not to stop calling the literal
BoF meetings BoFs. A lot of conferences have
On Jun 25, 2010, at 09:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
trying v6 for a couple of seconds before trying v4 in parallel
I don't think this is realistic for applications like the Web, where people are
now creating Youtube-Spots with high-speed cameras that show, in slow-motion, a
potato cannon
On Jun 25, 2010, at 16:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
initial phase of contact with a server
To get the front page of the New York Times (http://www,nytimes.com), a
server a couple of minutes ago meant
http://admin.brightcove.com/
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/
http://creativeby1.unicast.com/
On Jun 23, 2010, at 15:06, Martin Rex wrote:
optimizing for their own interest alone
I don't know about you, but when I set up a server, I have a strong interest
that my clients get their data fast.
So whatever it takes to do that, is in my interest.
BTW, initial analyses of iOS 4 (iPhone OS)
On Mar 29, 2010, at 00:56, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
From Frankfurt it is (of course) faster to take a high speed train, and from
Paris it's the only option. The downside of high speed trains is that you
can't just hop on like on a regular train, you need to book or reserve a
seat on a
On Mar 29, 2010, at 12:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
suitable for travel to Maastricht, such as Cologne/Köln
More useful from, say, the US (often surprisingly inexpensive), and quite
reasonably connected to Maastricht: Duesseldorf (DUS).
I'd probably look for BRU, DUS, AMS, FRA (in that
On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:28, Tony Hansen wrote:
published directly at Draft Standard status
Raise the bar so they stay at I-D level for even longer? A sizable
part of the Internet is run on I-Ds, not on PS.
I think the right direction is to publish PS earlier. If done right,
it's only
On Sep 22, 2009, at 12:35, pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
3) According to RFC 4224, ROHC segmentation does not work over
reordering channels. Thus, it seems suggesting that ROHC
segmentation could be used instead of pre-encryption fragmentation
(e.g. ipsec-extensions, Section 3.3) -- and in
On Sep 18, 2009, at 17:42, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The IAOC does believe that this
condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business.
Marshall,
I also do not believe that the IETF needs to violate this condition to
do its business.
However, in this case there are two
On Jul 6, 2009, at 15:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I have actually run into a somewhat cryptic error message (which I was
unable to reproduce on earlier releases, but which I was also unable
to reproduce consistently anyway), and I've seen some other reports of
issues with 1.34pre3, so it appears
On Jul 3, 2009, at 19:49, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
1. The recent boilerplate/process-change events have resulted in a
situation where the most-recommended tool for preparing IETF documents
does not work at all in its stable version.
To me, 1.34pre3 appears to be exactly as stable as 1.33
What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard
issue word processor.
Why? I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor,
this might
be feasible, but I think by standard issue you mean commercially
available.
http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/
Commercial, and the
On May 27, 2009, at 20:40, Doug Otis wrote:
[...no way to...] remain compliant with any fixed architectural
concept
We might need a new document class, Best Current Architecture (kind
of the inverse of BCP).
Gruesse, Carsten
___
Ietf mailing
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
