Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/1/2013 10:50 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
In particular, the effect of humming versus
show of hands was pretty obvious.
The fact that the results were so profoundly different should get our
attention, enough to get us to consider specifying how to
What this brings to mind is that we used to have implicit DNS domain
search in the early days of DNS. When edu.com accidentally hijacked
a huge chunk of the Internet, most of the net very quickly got rid of
implicit search, and we got the explicit DNS search feature that many
people are
Reading some of this discussion leaves me puzzled because I can't tell
which things that some people are saying are intended to be about
dotless use of domains, or are intended to be about the expansion of
top level domains in general.
The IAB's statement does not seem to be about whether or not
Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been
a heart attack.
Whoah. I had completely lost track of him in the past decade, but he
was one of the most memorable people I ever met through the IETF. We
met first at IETF 37 I think,
lizhong@zte.com.cn wrote:
1-3 April 2016 will be holiday in China. If the time is 3-8 April, then
many Chinese attendees have to give up the holiday. Would you propose
another time? Thank you.
I think there's probably always either a major holiday somewhere or
another conference that the
Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 13:25 -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 21 July 2012 06:55, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
This year Ramadan started yesterday, and ends on August 19. Moving the
meeting one week in either direction would not have helped.
As a reader of RFCs, I've come to expect that 2119 words are always
capitalized, and that when the same words appear in lowercase or mixed
case they're not being used in the 2119 sense. This seems to be a de
facto standard, even though 2119 doesn't require it. I'm in favor of
continuing with
Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
Question, did the IETF list setup disable the non-member email
notifications?
Spam reduction. We apply the rule to all of our mailing lists, and it is very
helpful.
I don't think that's what Hector asked.
The question isn't do we block email from
This PBS interview with Harvey Mudd president Maria Klawe, on the
subject of why fewer women go into tech engineering fields, is
worth watching:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video/blog/2012/04/college_president_discusses_wo.html
-- Cos
If the main problem with leap seconds is their future
unpredictability, isn't there a compromise option between the status
quo and no more leap seconds? Couldn't they come up with a fixed
schedule for leap seconds for many centuries at a time, based on
current predictions of approximately how
I've never been able to get first level tech support at my ISP to
understand latency or packet loss. They only understand can you
load a web page? This does not mean their ISP doesn't provide packet
loss and latency, standard with their service :)
More to the point, when I've been at hotels or
On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I'm a fan of reducing down to 2 levels, too. But it has nothing to
do with how overblown the effort to get to Proposed is. (Well,
I feel like we already have a 2-level system.
What's the practical difference between Proposed and full Standard?
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the one legacy protocol that has a dependency on IP address constancy
is FTP, it would seem to me to be much easier to upgrade FTP to remove the
dependency than to try to control the network.
There are other protocols hiding out there.
MATIP,
Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So in my view the problem here is that when I pay for an X Mb/sec
connection at the moment I have no real way of knowing whether that is
really X Mb/sec all the time or X/n Mb/sec when I am
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
(objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
(which is not so easy to predict, but 2015 is a popular estimate). The
rest is pretty good for a story in
YAO Jiankang ya...@cnnic.cn wrote:
HUANG, JERRY (ATTLABS) zh1...@att.com wrote:
What I am not so sure about is the sweeping statement that Americans
would likely have difficulties with the '-mm-dd' format. I walked
around the office and polled seven of my co-workers who happen to be
On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
As part of a research project, we are working on automated
diagnostics of network-related faults in residential, SOHO,
conference/special event, hotel and similar networks. If you have
observed errors that were hard for a lay person to
There are, it appears, many types of IETF RFCs, some which are intended to
be called Internet standards and others which bear other embedded labels
and descriptions in their boilerplate text that are merely experimental or
informational or perhaps simply proposed standard. One contributor here
Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
With the text above, don't be surprised when people learn that they can
become bona fide IETF members by subscribing to the IETF discussion list and
the new subscription volume swells exponentially. Given the contents of many
of the letters
Powers Chuck-RXCP20 chuck.pow...@motorola.com wrote:
If the technology in the document to be standardized is
unencumbered, then the fact that _some_ uses of that technology may
run into encumbered territory is irrelevant, except to those who
hate patents in general.
I think software patents
Alex Loret de Mola edgarver...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Carsten: (And others who feel upset at the recent development)
As someone who's been a (mostly silent, but frequently reading) member
of this mailing list, I can understand your concern. However, can you
propose a better way for them to
Subject: IPv6 only Plenary Makes the News
Isn't that just a press release from ISOC, being distributed by wire
services online?
-- Cos
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:10:28AM -0400,
Joe Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now this is an interesting little giggle. I made it into a DNS
timeline. Incredible.
http://www.inaic.com/index.php?p=internet-dns-timeline
... a timeline of the DNS that documents the teeniest details, but
it yet, obviously this doesn't constitute evidence that we need to
solve the problem again by developing a new protocol.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSI is a beautiful dream, and TCP/IP is living it!
-- Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF mailing list, 12 May 1992
or effectiveness)
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cos.polyamory.org/
OSI is a beautiful dream, and TCP/IP is living it!
-- Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF mailing list, 12 May 1992
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody have a reference on an authorization scheme that
doesn't imply any authentication?
From:-line based email filters.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cos.polyamory.org/
-- WBRS (100.1 FM) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
Not Be Expired.
Anyone for an FYI RFC, IETF mailing list flame war glossary and schedule ?
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cos.polyamory.org/
-- Exodus Communications -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.exodus.net/
We all misuse the net for personal gain, one way
-2380
-- (Ofer Inbar) [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- pager: 800-351-9387
ly make analogies to things like
postal mail, or to bosses who communicate via secretaries who can
freely change between fax or mail without changing the content of the
messages exchanged by their bosses.
NAT, as far as I can tell, is pretty much always a kludge, whether
it's natural or not. It d
a standard, although
of course I can't prove anything about anyone's intent at the time.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Exodus Professional Services -- http://www.exodus.net/
"We all misuse the net for personal gain, one
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ofer Inbar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"
We can. Just go work for a company that is willing to send you to
IETF on their time money, and
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Exodus Professional Services -- http://www.exodus.net/
"We all misuse the net for personal gain, one way or another."
-- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
32 matches
Mail list logo
