On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
[WEG] close enough, ship it.
hurray! :) (I'm also ok with the last edit buffer fun)
thank wes and randy for a fun discussion.
-chris
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com]
[CLM]
In the RPKIcache example, 'consumer' is 'routers in your network'.
'Close' is 'close enough that bootstrapping isn't a problem',
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
i think the two paragraphs you would like to see improved are
[snip]
i am not against further explanation, send text. but short text. :)
[WEG] just the first paragraph
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The following mostly are points that I raised within the group's mailing
list discussion, during charter development. In my view, they have not yet
been adequately resolved:
On 8/21/2013 10:52 AM, The IESG wrote:
+ iesg
-iesg-secretary
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The following mostly are points that I raised within the group's mailing
list discussion, during charter development
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com wrote:
My wallet supposedly has a RFID-blocking layer, but I've not actually tested
it. I think the only RFID-capable thing in my wallet is my US passport.
Did this LC end?
or stated differently: What's the status of this draft LC?
I'm not such a fan of the draft, mostly because it appears to remove
some principles that some RIR folk hold up in their policy discussions
as important... while not having a backstop in said policies to
replace the
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will be shortly on
the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision and/or suggestion for changes.
I personally think it is ready to move forward. That is not to
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:15 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Chris,
On Jun 18, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not such a fan of the draft, mostly because it appears to remove
some principles that some RIR folk hold up in their policy
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
What useful history can you possibly get when each file is only ever
substantively changed by publishing another file?
Aue Te Ariki! He toki ki roto taku mahuna!
On 2013-03-16, at 14:21, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
Is there a publicly-available Git repository of RFCs or of
Internet-Drafts?
The reason I ask about a Git repository is that regular Git pulls
from such a repository seems like a straightforward and well-supported
way
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Francis Galiegue fgalie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
curious why rsync doesn't also seem 'straightforward' and 'well supported' ?
* rsync doesn't prevent corruption of data
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Francis Galiegue fgalie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Francis Galiegue fgalie...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Christopher Morrow
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Francis Galiegue fgalie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
What I mean is that if there is disk corruption on the server hosting
the drafts (which can happen post write), rsync
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
curious why rsync doesn't also seem 'straightforward' and 'well
supported' ?
Is this an advocacy of a particular tool? Or are you asserting that
rsync can be used
install dropbpx
On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
curious why rsync doesn't also seem 'straightforward' and 'well
supported
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:54 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Sigh. You would think that after a number of years they could've come up
with a better solution than to use different squat space. Given 25/8 is
'legacy' space, unencumbered by registration service agreements, I
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Congestion Exposure WG (conex)
to consider the following document:
- 'ConEx Concepts and Use Cases'
draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Congestion Exposure WG (conex)
to consider the following document:
- 'ConEx Concepts and Use
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Jim Fleming ietf.fact.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Was the U.S. FCC consulted about the 100/8 Address Spectrum usage ?
spectrum?
congrats on the database and select/group queries, please to move to a
list that cares.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Jim Fleming ietf.fact.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
IETF Meeting Registration System
Attendance List
IETF 83
Paris, France
March 25-30, 2012
2012/3/14 Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com:
This is really good news for some people, that already have address
conflict within RFC1918 and don't want to get public address space :p
you mean every enterprise on the planet? (or probably 99.999%)
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:49 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
I'm curious: how is the IETF stopping ARIN from allocating the space?
+1
though honestly I'm not a fan of the process.
Thanks,
-drc
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
(not voting twice, my other
(not speaking for the authors, just observing some... also not
speaking as a co-chair)
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
I find this I-D problematic. The subject matter is of crucial importance,
comparable to, or perhaps more important than, IPv6, yet this
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
(not speaking for the authors, just observing some... also not
speaking as a co-chair)
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
I find this I-D problematic. The subject matter
25 matches
Mail list logo
