On 26/02/2013 22:59, Warren Kumari wrote:
Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk
procrastinating and actually *submit*.
+1
lots of people - including me - are almost entirely event driven (no pun
intended).
Nick
On 03/02/2013 21:17, joel jaeggli wrote:
Having responded to an appeal associated with handling of a WG document,
there can easily be 2000k worth of messages sitting in the archives arcoss
multiple lists for a given document.
I forsee many phds for future anthropologists and social historians.
On 02/02/2013 01:34, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I recommend that IETF WGs consider start an initial historical I-D
including their memories of important process or design of protocols,
at least each 20 years WG participants could document their technical
involvement history within WG work.
The
On 18/12/2012 22:50, Ben Campbell wrote:
I think Nick's email was a review of the document in general,
yes, sorry, it was. I hit reply when I saw the subject line.
I don't think so. This draft does not establish a standard, or define a
protocol. While I don't speak for the authors, I don't
On 18/12/2012 22:26, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Nick, I appreciate that you have read this document and commented.
Two general questions:
1) Can you be more specific about where you see unclear language usage? It
is hard to fix a general coment.
I was referring to the use of has to, but the
On 18/12/2012 23:15, Anantha Ramaiah wrote:
Also TCP MD5 with periodic key rollover can make the life harder for TCP
MD5 based collision attacks.
there is no facility in rfc 2385 for automatic key rollover, which means
that any key changes must be done manually. I've come across gratuitous
key
On 18/12/2012 20:14, Ben Campbell wrote:
** Nits/editorial comments:
-- The 2119 paragraph was removed, but there's still an orphaned 2119 entry
in the informational reference section.
I'm not sure that this was a good idea. There are a lot of has tos in
this text, and it's not clear to me
On 09/12/2012 20:40, Melinda Shore wrote:
process documents. I hope that where your efforts end up is a wiki
page or some such, which I think would be helpful, rather than an RFC,
which I think would not.
Pretty much everything in the draft is covered by many third party wikis
and faqs
On 14/11/2012 17:00, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Can you provide pointers?
Lots of meetings (e.g. ixp meetings, etc) do live video, although I'd
accept that not that many meetings have as many parallel tracks as IETF.
RIPE meetings provide both live video streaming and live stenography (they
use
On 09/11/2012 17:24, Carlos M. martinez wrote:
So, as a humble kinda newcomer, where should I take some ideas regarding
IPv6 mibs ? Which should be the appropiate WG ?
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2 for bgp stuff. What ideas do you have and maybe
someone could point you in the right direction.
On 07/09/2012 14:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
The IESG should not be /required/ to honor a court order?
whose court order?
Nick
On 01/06/2012 00:50, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Thank you for that most colorful analogy. :-) What I proposed is exactly
what we are doing now, except that the changes would appear on the web
page instead of an Internet-Draft and, five years later, an RFC. Are you
saying that the current system
On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Works for me, other than it should not be a wiki. It should have one
editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do
it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals
in the leadership, are ones that should
On 10/05/2012 11:55, Hector Santos wrote:
Always looking for automated solutions, perhaps the IETF I-D submissions
process should include a patent database query check using document
authors, document titles, abstract, keywords etc to find possible exact or
near filings made, and if any are
On 28/03/2012 20:21, Jim Fleming wrote:
ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check
What I'd like to know is whether the ZOOM:// protocol is IPv8 compatible.
Nick
On 01/03/2012 17:50, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Stephen and I just had a chat about this matter. He and I came up with a
proposed paragraph to add after that list of bullet points:
In the initial phase of work on HTTP/2.0, new proposals
for authentication schemes can be made. The WG
On 16/02/2012 16:35, Martin Millnert wrote:
You seem to want me to believe that:
- there is a fixed set of networks, who are going to deploy either:
- a sucky IPv4 network, or,
- a less sucky IPv4 network,
- it would be entirely depending on the passing of this draft,
- the
On 16/02/2012 19:42, David Conrad wrote:
One implication of draft-weil not being accepted is that it will likely
accelerate IPv4 free pool exhaustion as the folks interested in
draft-weil will simply go out and get blocks from their RIRs while they
still can. I will admit a small part of me
On 16/02/2012 19:42, Noel Chiappa wrote:
This isn't exactly about a complicated protocol: it's about whether to assign
an address block or not.
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason that people are
moaning about it so much is that they understand the concept of address
On 02/02/2012 23:05, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Hides the screen, nervous, pays cash... Sounds to me like anyone
surfing pr0n at the Internet Cafe is now a suspected terrorist.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear
(Apologies to Daniel Solove who has written extensively about this
Phillip,
On 20/01/2012 14:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we need to get rid of
the arbitrary correction factors introduced by leap seconds.
Your arguments in favour of abolishing leap seconds are all good. But can
you please do us all a
On 20/01/2012 15:49, Tony Finch wrote:
No, a timezone change (or rather a series of timezone changes) doesn't
affect the relationship between UTC and TAI. The changes don't even need
global co-ordination.
you could deal with this using TZ changes, but that's turning it into
someone else's
On 05/12/2011 18:58, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why don't the ISPs get together, outside the IETF (I so wanted to expand on
this thought, but I had better not), and have one of them - one which is in
an area with an RIR with the most available space - go their RIR and ask for
a /10 for their in-house
On 17/11/2011 17:17, Robinson Tryon wrote:
If authors take on the responsibility of creating and verifying the
fidelity of exported versions,
There are two directly conflicting issues here:
1. presenters are not going to be able to guarantee strict pdf/a v1.4 output
2. the ietf is not going
On 17/11/2011 22:16, John Levine wrote:
Are there really presentation programs so lame that they can't export PDFs?
Yes, many - but if you're running windows, there is always cutepdf which
acts as a printer driver and you can use it to export pdf from anything.
Or if you use a mac, you can
On 15/11/2011 18:28, Martin Rex wrote:
While I do have OpenOffice on about half of my dozen computing environments,
none of them is sufficiently new to process PPTX. I'm a developer
and need my time for work, rather than constantly wrangling of software
updates of software that I hardly use
On 15/11/2011 19:40, Martin Rex wrote:
While I do have OpenOffice on about half of my dozen computing environments,
[...]
Correct. Upgrading an installation takes me a full week until it
works as smoothly as the original working environment. I don't have
more than one week per year available
On 15/11/2011 21:29, Melinda Shore wrote:
That sort of sarcasm has a tendency not to work out in the
longer run.
no, probably not. It's just that I've been hearing the same complaint
about unwillingness to upgrade to widely-supported file / display / etc
formats for as long I've been dabbling
On 15/11/2011 21:33, Noel Chiappa wrote:
If there's any activity more boring, and less truly productive, than
updating to the latest rev of a software environment, I'd like to know
what it is.
Exquisitely boring, yes. But if refusal to upgrade causes current
compatibility problems, then it is
On 15/11/2011 22:30, Melinda Shore wrote:
Librarian, here. As a fan of the unusual argument I love the
suggestion that future researchers will have an easier time with
undocumented, proprietary formats, and therefore in the present
day we should all be required to run behemothware so that we
On 20/10/2011 20:21, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
One thing to consider is charging for this service
I have no problem paying some fee to the IETF in order to get better remote
participation capability when I am unable to travel to the location chosen.
I would much rather pay $200-$300 to
Can I humbly suggest that we create a separate working group to discuss
whether there should be a subject_prefix for emails to ietf@ietf.org?
This is an important issue for many people, and it would be unfortunate -
nay, negligent - to make a decision on the matter without due discussion,
debate
32 matches
Mail list logo
