Surely there must be easier ways to get email addresses.
John
Sent from my Nokia N96.
-original message-
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good
Harald,
Even a simpler solution. If you (meaning Iljitsch) had serious conflicts,
then let the WG chairs know about these conficts. They may may not on the
WG Chairs' radars. That has happened to me, where WG members were
overlapping with groups that I was unaware of.
John
On Mon, Mar 24,
Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force? It seems by this
thread, many of us are afraid to do any engineering and just work on emails and
paper.
I don't know about others, but I always liked testing some new technology at
IETF meetings, but that seems less common these
+1
-original message-
Subject: Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07/05/2007 11:59 AM
There are basically two types of applications/protocols: the simple
client/server ones (that work through NAT without changes) and
Not that I am advocating this particular site, but I would suggest that we are
fairly poor engineers if we don't at least try some new forms of networking.
I don't care what that Alexander Graham Bell says, I'm sticking to the
telegraph and Morse Code :)
Sent from my Nokia E90.
-original
It varies from place to place. I've seen people have their duty free bags
confiscated at Frankfurt for purely internal European flights. It seems that
the rules change weekly. Like Harald says, last hop is the only sure thing. No
transitive trust in airport security these days.
John
If anyone found a SecureID card last night, in Grande B (or elsewhere) please
let me know.
thanks,
John
sent from my Nokia 61.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Andy,
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Having a single editor simplifies many
things, but having a authors list allows full credit to all parties.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: RFC Author Count and IPR
From: Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/24/2006
I agree with Jari, having subsets doesn't seem like a good idea. Most use cases
for specific deployments seem to be very limited, and arguments can be made as
to why a more general purpose IPv6 would be a better choice.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: IPv6 Subsets?
From: Jari
Lars-Erik,
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize
that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes
because they think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because
consumers want to buy them.
I do not
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them
for more dynamic discussions.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Transport over flooded routes. Sounds like a plenary topic to me.
John
- original message -
Subject:RE: Venue requirements - canoe?
From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03/20/2006 4:14 pm
Sounds to me like this comes under the Transport Area - at least
as far as flooding
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this
specification (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-server-override-03.tx
t
My feeling is that this document needs some
I am growing tired of this meta-discussion, but I just needed to add my 2
cents, then I'll be quiet.
As someone who really wants to get work done, I find it very hard to get the
work done when someone posts seemingly random comments, or at least is using
argumentation that doesn't seem to have
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
chance of getting an RFC.
Why not?
Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than going
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the Neustar
logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo. Any particular reason why?
It just kind of jumps out at you
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 01/02/2006 4:07 pm
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 16:25:59 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the
Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 01/02/2006 4:07 pm
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 16:25:59 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the
Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than
Joel,
You can,(we've done it in the past) but since they're not actually
connected to the network when they're misbehaving it doesn't buy you much
until they fix their card, sleep their laptop, or reboot.
Having done some testing with various Operating systems wireless
implmentations, I
the source. This is not
something we need to cover in any kind of RFC, IMO.
John
From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/24 Mon PM 06:50:09 EEST
To: 'John Loughney' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'ietf@ietf.org' ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
Jordi,
This is over specifying, IMO. I'd simply say that:
Locations should be near a major airport with sufficient local transportation.
John
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/22 Sat PM 06:16:44 EEST
To: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Subject: IETF Meeting Venue
Dave, Jordi,
I think this is a non-issue. If participants are motivated, they will show-up.
If their employer values their work, they will cover the meeting costs. Other
SDOs have more extensive travel destinations than the IETF, and participants in
those organizations cope. The IETF is an
I believe this to be over specification, I don't think we should cover this.
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/22 Sat AM 03:16:37 EEST
To: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Subject: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria - Other health risks
Elwyn raised an interesting
Jordi,
All of the points, IMO, are over specifying the issues. I wouldn't really care
to see any of these points documented.
John
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/22 Sat AM 03:05:59 EEST
To: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection
Dave,
Is that hope for future participation by new attendees an acceptable
basis for making venue choices that hurt current participation by
primary contributors?
What is the evidence that we will not gain that new participation
without hurting current participation by primary
Brian,
Just wondering - is there any changes in the Transport Area, other
than the movement of the existing WGs (listed below) from the Transport
area?
It might be good to have this information posted somewhere on the the
IETF page.
thanks,
John
---
Creation of the Real-time
Eliot,
I've talked to quite a few folks that have been unable to attend meetings in
the US because of visa issues. Some consideration is needed for these reasons.
Also, the delay in getting future meetings listed has just made the situation
worse. I do think some of this discussion has been
General question - I know that the WiMax forum is working on more things
than just IP over 802-16e (etc.). You mention, for example, AAA, in the
description. Are you looking at more than just running IP over 802.16e
or something more?
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill,
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
Why do you think this would make any
Even though I benefit from this change, I disagree with it in principle
because there are too many people out there running around calling
themselves engineers who don't have a clue. If/when there are a
non-trivial number of schools offerring degrees in network engineering,
systems
I'm of conflicting thoughts about this. On one hand, more Ads could
have more opportunity to do more hands-on work with working groups, etc.
This would be a good thing, and could potentially help WGs to progress
drafts through WGs faster.
On the other hand, 2 more ADs means two more potential
That question stymied me, so I just selected No change.
John
-- original message --
Subject:Re: IETF 63 On-line Survey
From: Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08/17/2005 3:26 pm
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Would you prefer longer meetings or shorter meetings?
Shorter meetings
my 2 cents as well:
And whether or not people mention their affiliate at the mic is a
much smaller issue IMO to whether they use their company email
account. That is a much more visible and relevant label in IETF work
that mostly happens on mailing lists anyway.
I believe that its good to
Scott,
I dunno. I thought that some of the discussion has been about circulation of
folks in leadership positions. Some feel its good, some feel its bad. Its not
strictly term-limits as in goverment posts, as quite many former IAB IESG
members are extremely active in technical discussions,
Spencer,
However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to get here in
Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most cases). I think its a
different issue if I come to the mic and say, 'We at the ACME company would
like to state, for the record, that we support the foo
Hi all,
I was looking for Terminal Room info, but I can't find one. I was wondering if
anyone is seeing problems with changes with IP addresses. It seems, when
running VPN software, my IP address changes every 2 minutes. Since mobike
isn't yet an RFC, it makes it hard to keep my VPN up. If
Paul,
That seems like the most resonable approach to me. Are current requests
archived now?
John
-- original message --
Subject:Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
From: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07/22/2005 11:03 pm
At 3:51 PM
We were faced with this question some time ago, and the result was the
creation of the IETF Non-WG mailing lists page,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi
The theory being that if something is listed there, the IETF definitely
considers it an IETF list; if it is not listed,
Brian,
Sure, but the logic is nevertheless a bit contorted - but rather than
debating what the current system *means* could be concentrate
on what we should do in future?
Incidentally 3596 (a DS) obsoletes 3152 (a BCP). That's unusual,
but it isn't illogical. However, 3152 isn't shown as
Hi,
I was wondering if someone could help me out on this one. I was doing a bit
of analysis on the current RFC list, and noticed that some Draft Standard
documents are obsoleted. For example:
954 NICNAME/WHOIS. K. Harrenstien, M.K. Stahl, E.J. Feinler.
Oct-01-1985. (Format: TXT=7397
Eliot,
I would point out that it is historically useful to be able to track
changes between draft and full or proposed and draft and we don't list
status information in the RFCs...
I agree with that.
And, my head still hurts thinking about why we'd leave something as a
Proposed Standard
Nick,
The way I understand it, an RFC is only historic(al) if the technology it
defines is no longer in use.
Well, as Iljitsch mail pointed out, some things (3152 Delegation of IP6.ARPA)
are moved to Historic when the IETF wants people to stop using them ...'
An obsolete RFC means the
Hi John K,
I would point out that it is historically useful to be able
to track changes between draft and full or proposed and draft
and we don't list status information in the RFCs...
I agree with that.
And, my head still hurts thinking about why we'd leave
something as a
Henning,
No, lack of action by the community to request moving documents to
Historic.
There seem to be a number of these housekeeping tasks that have almost
no benefit to the individual, have increasing costs and ever longer-term
commitments and thus, not surprisingly, don't get done
Ted,
I've assumed that it was to tell you it was at Draft Standard when the
document
that replaced it was issued. That way you can tell whether the new doc is
a recycle-in-grade, an update to get something to the next step, or a
downgrade.
The real meat of the data here, though, is that
Brian,
What is the reason for continuing to list something
obsolete as a Draft Standard?
Lack of action by the IESG.
No, lack of action by the community to request moving
documents to Historic.
Section 6.2 of 2026 does say the following:
When a standards-track
Bob,
A question for you:
What is the reason for continuing to list something obsolete as a Draft
Standard?
Because Jon Postel always did it that way? Seriously, the idea is that the
document was a Draft Standard when it was published. You can obsolete
it, but you cannot change its
Title: Converted from Rich Text
John,
One thing that Danny's questionaire didn't address was "How many additional folks might consider putting their names in the hat if they knew the candidates. In past years, when I have gotten a request from NOMCOM to review the padded list, I've
. I really think these
type of things really strains any credibility that the IETF has.
John Loughney
From: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/05/10 Tue PM 04:36:51 EEST
To: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New root cause problems?
I have one
Margaret,
At 10:50 AM +0200 5/11/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But that gives very limited insight into what is holding it up, except
for a few cases. If it's in EDIT state you get no useful information about
issues and progress, for example.
Also, if there is the equivalent of the I-D
Seems resonable to of as well.
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/10/2005 5:27 pm
Bill,
When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a You have to fix this and I'm
holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed. I've seen variations on there as a draft
editor and it's not always clear. In the past, this has been an issue with ADs
who have not engaged the WG. It helps to have an
A slight mod:
The best technology doesn't always win: engineers don't always solve the right
problem. Sometimes I think the IETF is making the tools (a.k.a - protocols)
that make the Internet run. Sometimes the market doesn't want the tool that we
made, or needed a took sooner than we could
Hi all,
Is it true true that we suffer from a lack of IESG candidates? I've often heard
this claim, but I've been asked by the NOMCOM to comment on list for the part
few years it seemed that there were capable names on the lists (unless they
were all ringers).
John
The
Exactly. If the ad is not a member of the mailing list and the wg chair blocks
mails from an ad, them the wg has bigger problems than DISCUSSes on drafts.
John
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:RE:
Harald,
you forgot one:
- willingness to continue working as a chair, long after their day job has
moved onto new topics.
In this business, most folks change tasks, if not jobs, sooner than the average
half-life of wgs in the IETF.
John
The good thing about mobile
Brian,
it is also that it takes a long time for wgs to finish their work. It would be
an interesting stat to compare the initial deliverables vs. current statis vs.
the reality. We are not good at predicting work.
John
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces
How about when someone tosses their hat in the nomcom ring, they indicate if
their name can be made public. Nomcom publishes a list of these names a note
about the number of candidates who are anonymous. The genereal IETF than has a
somewhat better idea of who to provide comments on
Brian Jari,
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that
Keith,
You've raised these points, over a number of years, but I wonder if it would be
useful to explore implications of some of your comments:
2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output
from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem
by changing
Jari,
I agree with you on this point. I've tossed my hat into nomcom a few times,
but I would have either reconsidered or would have been more active had I known
the other candidates. Additionally, I could have given feedback on candidates
had I known that they were candidates.
NOMCOM has
Brian,
However, I'm not entirely convinced that the unrestricted veto really
exists. Before I can think about solutions to this problem, I need to
reexamine the process and convince myself that it really is a problem.
A DISCUSS isn't a veto. I've seen numerous cases even in my short
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back
on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their
judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information
supplied by others.
I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more
This is an announcement of an interim meeting for the NSIS working group.
The meeting will be held on May 23rd and 24th in Munich, Germany.
The venue of this meeting will be:
Siemens Conference Center, House Passau
Richard-Strauss-Strasse 76
81679 Munich
Germany
Details on location, travel,
wireless]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Id: IETF-Discussion ietf.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Post: mailto:ietf@ietf.org
List-Help
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Yeah, I've had trouble with Jabber too. I was the Jabber scribe in multi6 yesterday and it just stopped working halfway through. Noone had communication, even though the wireless was working, more or less.
John
--- Original message
back from the grave?)
Cc: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF ietf@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well, it is a mess. I couldn't even start making a wg schedule, as my wg
wasn't scheduled until yesterday. I even sent my
Hi Keith,
Working groups have a charter, which I think should be viewed as a contract for
what the working group will work on / develop. When a working group wants to
adopt a new draft, they need to have permission from the AD and may even need
to revise the charter to be able to adopt the
Title: Converted from Rich Text
SMS's for some languages are indeed in unicode, often one message is sent in a multipart message - i.e. - in more than one message. Even in various Nordic languages that have strange things like , , ... SMS's are sent in unicode.
Some cell phones sport
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Low power PAN - personalarea network. But then I wade through these acronyms for my day job.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 (lowpan)
From: "Spencer Dawkins" [EMAIL
Again. I agree with Sam and John here. Getting out of the over specification
here is important. The IASA will need to write-up some rules, but I think this
BCP is the wrong place, having some operational experience is important.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:Re: Last Call
Steve's email caused me to think, but first let me say that this should not be
in the BCP. Is it a correct assumption to think that the IASA will give an
update at every IETF plenary, along the lines of IANA and the RFC Editor? I
would hope so.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:
Proposed change: Get rid of unanimous (both times), replacing
it with consensus and appropriate editorial smoothing.
I agree.
John L
___
Ietf mailing
list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I agree with Brian John K.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:Re: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to
AdminRest
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 01/14/2005 11:49 am
John C Klensin wrote:
Pete,
I still think this is misdirected energy.
Haritha,
You might want to ask on the SIGTRAN list -
www.ietf.org/html.charters/sigtran-charter.html.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: An M2PA Question
From: haritha g [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time: 01/13/2005 3:54 pm
Hi
I had a question regarding association
I agree.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:Re: Consensus search: #725 3.4b Appealing decisions
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 01/13/2005 3:08 pm
I think this is acceptable given that we *also* have a recall
procedure. In other words, if the IAOC isn't
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Harald,
This sounds reasonable to me. How long do you are you planning to give us to review the updated draft? I've put off doing a thorough review of the draft (mostly just lurking on the discussions here) as it has been difficult to keep up with
Title: Converted from Rich Text
This seems reasonable to me.
John L.
John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and Scott Bradner supported the idea: In principle, IETF administrative functions should be outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
Title: Converted from Rich Text
I think your text is reasonable.
John L.
--- Original message ---
Subject: Other change needed? #722 - 5.4 - ISOC off-account payment for
expenses
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time:
Title: Converted from Rich Text
"Minimum staff required" seems uncomfortably worded to me. I am not sure we need to go into this detail, for the reason Scott listed. If we do need to have this leel of detail, could we say 'sufficient staff' or something along those lines?
John L
Brian's response seems reasonable to me.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: Transparency/Openness of the IAOC
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time: 12/08/2004 3:53 pm
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi All,
In reviewing the IASA BCP draft, I
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Margaret,
These users care about ease of deployment, cost and avoiding unscheduled outages (whether due to security issues or ISP changes)
Don't know about you, but if ever I have connectivity problems, the fiirst thing my provider wants me to do is
Title: Converted from Rich Text
One question. Governments don't assign street adresses at birth, why would they assign IP addresses? IP addresses are addresses, not Internet Identifiers.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Hi Paul,
As you are aware, just because it is possible doesn't make it a good idea.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
From: "Paul Vixie" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time: 11/20/2004
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Spencer,
Inertia is actually a fairly stong force, and IPv4 has a lot of it.
I'd be happy to point out some shipping products announcements from carriers about IPv6, however.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject:
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Harold,
Numbers are for losers and technologists.
Except that numbers seem to cross a number of languages better than, say, 7-bit ASCII ... YMMV.
John
___Ietf mailing list[EMAIL
Hi all,
I couldn't find from the terminal room web page info on the 802.1x or WPA
settings for the WLAN network. Anyone have details on the settings needed?
thanks,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with Scott.
John
Original message
Subject:Re: Call for Consensus: IETF Administrative Restructuring
Author: (scott bradner) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 28th October 2004 9:41:17 AM
For the documents that are to become RFCs, I most
Small spelling correction:
It is a non-goal of the working group to develop new resource
allocation protocols. Traffic engineering is out of scope of this
WG. Additionally, third party signaling is out of scope of this WG.
New mobility and AAA protocols are out of scope of the WG.
However,
A very small comment - I've noticed that successful IETF protocols have had
an open source or at least publically available code. This gives groups and
organizations an opportunity to use these new protocols. I'd generally
recommend most WGs to consider mechanisms to make code available for the
Title: Converted from Rich Text
I've skimmed the recent documents and have come away feeling rather
uninterested in the topic. As with most others, I asume, I'm more interested
in technical work not aministrative or reorg work.
What I assumed would happen is that we would hire a
Title: Converted from Rich Text
It seems to be working now. Nice to book on-line, for those who are time zone challenged.
John
Reply header
Subject: Re: Hotel online reservations
Author: "Rob Evans" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 30th August 2004
: 31st August 2004 12:08:05 pm
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:44:04PM +0300, John Loughney wrote:
It seems to be working now. Nice to book on-line, for those who are
time zone challenged.
I think the phone lines are there 24x7. The person I spoke to was very
lively for what would
Dean,
Just limiting my reply to one point:
That relegates RSVP to the enterprise Lan, where it usually isn't
needed.
Remember, RSVP is only useful if you have a congestion problem and
need to
choose which packets to discard. If you have no congestion problem,
then
you have no need of RSVP.
Of course. Then why this wasn't the first thing NSIS did after going
for on-path signalling, or didn't I just manage to find it?
NSIS was specifically charged to by the Transport ADs to work on on-path signaling.
There is an analysis document being reviewed by the IESG right now ...
I
If we scheduled the March meeting in New Orleans or Rio, maybe things would get
interesting!
John
Reply Header
Subject:Re: YATS? Re: T-shirts,
and some suggestions for future ietf meetings
Author: shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 09th
Title: Converted from Rich Text
By the way, the hotel has free IPv6 connectivity in every room, since we
installed it in May 2003 (first one in the world as I know). (snip) PS: And yes, we of course plan to provide a nice t-shirt ! OK, I'm convinced. Lets go there as soon as
Title: Converted from Rich Text
I don't know whether stopping "manyfolks" is right or not.
A note about manyfolks, a few IETF's ago, there were 3 or 4 drafts submitted into the WG I chair that were on the same topic. I felt it would be best if the authors got together and submitted a
The NSIS working group will hold an Interim Meeting.
When: June 1st - 3rd, 2004
Where: Roke Manor Research, Romsey UK
More information at:
http://nsis.srmr.co.uk/interim.html
Tentative schedule
Tueday June 1st
- QoS NSLP
- Support for intserv / diffserv models
Wednesday June 2rd
-
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Hi Eliot,
Similarly, SOCKS went quite far before the IETF ever got a look at it. Why? Because we are no longer viewed as a place where development can seriously take place. Risk averse. You know that thing about running code? Taken too far we
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
