Hi -
>From: Olafur Gudmundsson
>Sent: Sep 11, 2013 7:19 AM
>To: Evan Hunt
>Cc: "dn...@ietf.org WG" , "ietf@ietf.org TF"
>Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.
...
>RRSIG on the SOA or NS or DNSKEY also is fine timestamp except when it is a
>replay attack or a fo
Hi -
> From: "Dave Aronson"
> To: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" ; "Janet P Gunn"
>
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Charging remote participants
...
> I had to go Google that. To save others the trouble: it seems to
> refer to rides at a carnival, and mean "whatever los
Hi -
>From: Yaron Sheffer
>Sent: Aug 13, 2013 2:11 PM
>To: IETF Discussion Mailing List
>Subject: re: Last Call: (Concise Binary Object
>Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
...
>- The "diagnostic notation" can be used very effectively for things like
>configuration files, e.g. if
Hi -
It seems as though participants in this thread are operating
with different understandings of what constitutes "institutional
bias." A critical difference is whether *intent* is necessary
for bias to exist. As I understand it, institutional bias
can exist in the absence of ill intent, and c
Hi -
>From: Ted Lemon
>Sent: Jun 12, 2013 12:42 PM
>To: Peter Saint-Andre
>Cc: "" , Alexey
>Melnikov , Pete Resnick
>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion"
>Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
>
>On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I think these messages are useless, not
Hi -
> From: "Adrian Farrel"
...
> But who pays the operators' bills, and do we need to encourage participation
> at
> that level as well?
Participation as:
RFC uptake:
- using something based on an RFC?
- deploying something based on an RFC?
- implementing something
Hi -
Watching this discussion scroll by on my screen, I'm amazed
how similar it is to discussions of evangelism in congregations.
Two things this religious institution might learn from other
religious institutions:
(1) "need-based" evangelism. Outreach efforts are more
effective if they
Hi -
> From: "Brian E Carpenter"
> To: "Ned Freed"
> Cc: "John C Klensin" ; ;
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Language editing
...
> You are correct if only considering the mail standards. I suspect
> that a serious attempt at formal verification would have thrown
> up a
Hi -
> From: "Michael Richardson"
> To: "ietf" ; "Andrew McGregor"
> Cc: "Christian Huitema" ; "SM"
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:47 AM
> Subject: Re: last call comments for
> draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06
...
> I think that non-contiguous ifindexes are a pain in the ass (base
Hi -
> From: "Dan Harkins"
> To: "Margaret Wasserman"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership
...
> If there's some bias involved in the Nomcom's selection process then
> point it out and let's address it. The mere fact that there are is
> pre
Hi -
> From: "John C Klensin"
> To: "Carsten Bormann"
> Cc: "John Levine" ; ;
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Vestigial Features (was Re: CRLF (was: Re: A modest proposal))
...
> So, yes, some TTY units needed padding
> characters or other delays and sometimes it v
Hi -
> From: "Scott Brim"
> To: "Ted Hardie"
> Cc: "IETF"
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Common sense, process, and the nature of change
>
> Ted: Very nice but I would go further. You believe that everyone in the
> IETF has either internalized the mission or will in t
Hi -
> From: "Andy Bierman"
> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
...
> NMS developers need to spend too many resources on translating
> naming and other data-modeling specific details so they can
Hi -
> From: "Yoav Nir"
> To: "Mary Barnes"
> Cc: "IETF-Discussion list"
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register
...
> IOW I don't see the difference between not wanting to spend too
> much time at work and wanting to
Hi -
> From: "Ronald Bonica"
> To: "Randy Presuhn" ; ;
> ; "Brian E Carpenter"
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 7:44 AM
> Subject: RE: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
...
> The proposed IESG statement encourages commun
Hi -
> From: "Ronald Bonica"
> To: ; ;
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 1:56 PM
> Subject: RE: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
> If this IESG statement is published, none of that changes.
It might be helpful to say what *would* change upon publication
of this stateme
Hi -
> From: "Randy Bush"
> To: "Adrian Farrel"
> Cc: "IETF Disgust" ; "IESG"
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
>
> one aspect that may be missed is that there is a body of experimantal
> documents which were not reall
Hi -
> From: "Michael Richardson"
> To: "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: ITC copped out on UTC again
...
> Can you tell me which protocols use future timestamps in an moving form
> (not stored at rest in a cert
Hi -
If you're using the IETF tools to distribute information, you should be
aware of this...
...
> host mx4.mindspring.com [207.69.189.220]: 550 IP 194.146.105.14 is
> blocked by EarthLink. Go to earthlink.net/block for
details.
...
194.146.105.14 is merlot.tools.ietf.org
Their support pag
Hi -
> From: "John C Klensin"
> To: "Ole Jacobsen"
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:28 AM
> Subject: RE: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx
...
> On the other hand, I tried the PDF file out on one of those
> small-screen devices and discovered that it preserved the page
Hi -
> From: "Hector"
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 7:52 AM
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
...
> For protocol v2.0, X2 is a improved version of X1.
>
> SHOULD USE X2 IF POSSIBLE, IF NOT
> MUST USE X1
>
> Its the same as saying
>
> MUST USE X2 first or X1 as a fallback
...
No
Hi -
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> To: "IETF discussion list"
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:00 AM
> Subject: RE: 2119bis
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Hector
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:57 A
Hi -
> From: "Eric Burger"
> To: "Narten Thomas" ; "Saint-Andre Peter"
>
> Cc: "IETF discussion list"
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> I would assume in the text of the document. This paragraph is simply an
> enumeration of Burger's Axiom:
> For every SHOULD
Hi -
> From: "Andrew Sullivan"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Drafts Submissions cut-off
...
> I like the submission cut-off because it is a useful forcing function
> to get drafts in by a reasonable time before the meeting so that
> people can read them. But I
Hi -
> From: "Noel Chiappa"
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 3:05 PM
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
...
> I think we should only mark things as HISTORIC as a recognition of _what has
> already happened_ out in the world, not as an attempt to _make somethin
Hi -
> From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:16 AM
> Subject: Historic status (was Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6
> transitionissues))
...
> And what could/should be done? I think, IESG and the whole community,
> cooperating with IAB, IRSG and ISE, should dete
Hi -
> From: "Keith Moore"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 5:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
...
> > Consider, then, RFC 1157.
> >
> > It was, quite rightly, declared historic years ago, even though it
Hi -
> From: "TJ"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
...
> > The point is that the "historic" declaration can be a statement
> > about how the IETF wants things to be,
Hi -
> From: "Rémi Després"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
...
> > I'm pretty sure Noel was being scarcastic. There's clear precedent in the
> > analogou
Hi -
> From: "james woodyatt"
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Martin Rex
> >>
> >> Classification of 6to4 as historic is [in]appropriate use of the IETF
> >> process, because
Hi -
> From: "Tom Yu"
> To: "Sam Hartman"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:40 PM
> Subject: Re: IETF and APIs
>
> Personal observation: "API" is a subclass of "interface". "Network
> protocol" is a subclass of "interface". Interfaces (in the general
> case) are valuable things to s
Hi -
> From: "Eliot Lear"
> To: "RJ Atkinson"
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Request for review of draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-03
...
> The IAB and IESG control STD1, and have every right and in fact a
> responsibility to say what status they think any docume
Hi -
> From: "Masataka Ohta"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:14 PM
> Subject: Re: MHonArc mail archive line wrapping
...
> But, when plain text is good enough, we use plain text.
>
> Assuming you have ASCII key board, 80-column assumption is
> reasonable.
For reasonable devices, I
Hi -
> From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTSI)"
> To: "Eric Burger" ; "Alessandro Vesely"
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 4:34 AM
> Subject: RE: SDO vs academic conference, was poster sessions
>
> At issue though is that these individuals get paid (sponsored) by
> someone, either directly or
Hi -
> From: "t.petch"
> To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" ; "IETF Discussion"
>
> Cc: "iesg"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:29 AM
> Subject: Last Call On draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12
> The provenance of the editor is unknown to
> me - and of course, once an RFC has been through the IETF p
Hi -
> From: "Martin Rex"
> To: "Julian Reschke"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> I tried to use xml2rfc once and gave up after 3 hours of getting NOWHERE,
> not even _running_ xml2rfc.
FWIW, I've never
Hi -
> From: "Julian Reschke"
> To: "Barry Leiba"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> Clarifying: the reason why I'm researching is that apparently some
> people think it woul
Hi -
> From: "Julian Reschke"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> > Here's one incarnation of what I
Hi -
> From: "Julian Reschke"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> So, I do understand how generate the T
Hi -
> From: "t.petch"
> To: "Andrew Sullivan" ;
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Alternate entry document model (was: Re: IETF processes
> (wasRe:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels))
...
> So whether we have XStandard, YStandard or ZStandard and how we move
> between the
Hi -
> From: "Ted Hardie"
> To: "IETF"
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:15 PM
> Subject: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)
...
> As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
> thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at
> the root of all thi
Hi -
> From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
> To: "Scott O. Bradner"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:24 PM
> Subject: Re: what is the problem bis
...
> Most of the documents to reach STANDARD status in recent years have been
> SNMP documents. But even though SNMP has its uses, deployment and
Hi -
> From:
> To: ;
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 9:02 AM
> Subject: RE: Query on SNMP Error Fields
...
> This is an strict expectation as per SNMP RFC specs ,
> that the Set/GEt/GetNext requests set the error status
> and error-index field to 0.
Citation, please? While it is very reasonable
Hi -
> From: "deepak rajaram"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:18 AM
> Subject: Query on SNMP Error Fields
...
> While the SNMP RFC(1157/2571/SNMPv3) mentions the behavior of "Error Status"
> and "Error Index" field as "will be set in the response" and the value of
> these fields in all set/
Hi -
> From: "Peter Saint-Andre"
> To:
> Cc: ; ; ;
>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Make HTML and PDF more prominent, was: Re: Why the normative
...
> naïveté, Ã
...
> façade
...
> übermensch
...
> résumé
...
> soirée
...
> Café
...
Modern English spellings, ple
Hi -
> From: "Julian Reschke"
> To: "Glen Zorn"
> Cc: "'Christian Huitema'" ; "'The IETF'"
>
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 3:16 AM
> Subject: Re: XML2RFC and 2010?
...
> Maybe you only have the XML source under version control, and you want
> to check the actual text you submitted? (withou
Hi -
> From: "Richard L. Barnes"
> To: "IETF Member Dave Aronson"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion"
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Corporate email attachment filters and IETF emails
>
> Clearly, the best solution to this problem is to enforce Latin as the
> official language o
Hi -
> From: "jean-michel bernier de portzamparc"
> To: "internet users contributing group"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 3:48 PM
> Subject: IUCG IDNA2010 SIG
...
> le:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cjfcm%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip=
...
It's interesting what leaks out of s
Hi -
> From: "Andrew Allen"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
> Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client
Hi -
> From: "Michael Montemurro"
> To: "IETF-Discussion list" ; "Cullen Jennings"
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
...
> My company
> has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the
> concerns and d
Hi -
> From: "John C Klensin"
> To: "Stanislav Shalunov" ;
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Fix the Friday attendance bug: make the technicalplenary the
> last IETF session, like it was before
...
> Also keep in mind that, as the IETF becomes more international,
> Frida
Hi -
> From: "Julian Reschke"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> And of course you can do that with
Hi -
> From: "Julian Reschke"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> Point is: nroff and xml2rfc share the adva
Hi -
> From: "Julian Reschke"
> To: "Randy Presuhn"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> > For editing a document, particularly a
Hi -
> From: "Stefan Santesson"
> To: "Donald Eastlake"
> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
> All I have managed to get across are ways to generate a TOC in the end of
> the document, t
Hi -
> From: "Stefan Santesson"
> To: "Donald Eastlake" ; "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
>
> How do you translate the .nroff formatted document to a readable text
> document?
One of the a
Hi -
> From: "Eliot Lear"
> To: "Sam Hartman"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management
> (Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management
of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions) to BCP
...
> Also, I
Hi -
> From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
> To: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:49 AM
> Subject: Re: 75th IETF - Hotels
...
> Do we have an RFC for how to format phone numbers?
ITU E.123 would be what you want.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.123-200102-I/e
Clause 2
Hi -
> From: "Tom.Petch"
> To: "Alexa Morris"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Repair of Public Mail List Archives Complete
...
> But when I really need an archive, to see what was
> agreed in 2006, I have to get there day by day by painstaking day by tedious
> day
Hi -
> From: "Phillips, Addison"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:49 AM
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred value for YU
>
> Hi Tex,
>
> I don't think this is probably appropriate, at least for this list to
> consider.
Tex's posting came after the document
Hi -
> From: "Tex Texin"
> To: ;
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:05 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10.txt issue with preferred valuefor
> YU
>
> With respect to the proposed update to the Language Subtag Registry
> draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-10:
>
> I would like to lodge an objecti
Hi -
> From: "Wes Hardaker"
> To: "Scott Brim"
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: It's time for some new steps
...
> FYI, I unsubscribed twice. The first method (logging in with my
> assigned password and hitting unsubscribe) failed even though it told me
> it succ
Hi -
> From: "Dave CROCKER"
> To: "IETF Discussion"
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:38 PM
> Subject: It's time for some new steps (was: [Welcome to the
> "Ietf-honest"mailing list])
...
> Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version of
> it
> is more than sill
Hi -
It might be a bit more credible if they offered a plausible alternative
technology. Have they said when they'll post their I-D (meeting all
RFC 5378 requirements, of course)?
Randy
> From: "AJ Jaghori"
> To: "mshore" ; "Jeffrey Hankins" ;
> ;
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:41 PM
>
Hi -
> From: "John C Klensin"
> To: "Spencer Dawkins" ; "Harald Alvestrand"
> ;
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Please Review Draft IESG Statement on Activities that are OBE
...
> (1) Anything that clearly shifts this document toward "guidance
> to the community about
Hi -
Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean that if a WG
really has no concern that the documents it's working on would be
spun off to another organization, then it doesn't need to
worry about tracking down "contributors"?
Randy
> From: "Contreras, Jorge"
> To: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, Janu
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed on I-Ds and RFCs.
However, the definition of "contribution" in that document
includes, among other t
Hi -
> From: "Russ Housley"
> To: "Doug Ewell"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments
> on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
>
> Doug:
>
> I hope this response answers your pragmatic questions
Hi -
> From: "Bill Manning"
> To: "Lawrence Rosen"
> Cc: "'IETF Discussion'"
> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
> reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378
Problem
...
> er... thats -NOT- what I was
Hi -
> From: "John Day"
> To: "Rémi Després" ; "John C Klensin"
>
> Cc: "Bryan Ford" ;
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 7:24 AM
> Subject: Re: The internet architecture
>
> No it isn't Transport's job. Transport has one
> and only one purpose: end-to-end reliability and
> flow control.
>
> "
Hi -
> From: "Contreras, Jorge"
> To: "Randy Presuhn" ; "IETF Discussion"
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> Subject: RE: where to send RFC 5378 license forms
...
> The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust. No author permiss
Hi -
(I trimmed the CC list, assuming that the WG chairs and Trustees that
care about this stuff are already listening to the IETF discussion.)
> From: "Ray Pelletier"
> To: "Sam Hartman"
> Cc: "Martin Duerst" ; "Randy Presuhn"
> ; &q
Hi -
> From: "John C Klensin"
> To: "Randy Presuhn" ; "IETF discussion list"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:40 PM
> Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
...
> What gives your WG the ability to func
Hi -
> From: "Dave CROCKER"
> To: "John C Klensin"
> Cc: "IETF discussion list"
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
...
> That is: Working groups are part of the IETF and 'authors' of working group
> documents
Hi -
> From: "Dave CROCKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Theodore Tso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists...
...
> Really: If there is a larger issue that the IETF can and should tackle, then
Hi -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:50 AM
> Subject: Advice on publishing open standards
...
> For the past 5 years, I've been processing written sign language as data.
> I've worked directly with the inventor of the script, which is over 30
> years old.
>
Hi -
> From: "james woodyatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Behave WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
> applicationdevelopers
...
> The basic problem with NAT66 is that it introduces the possi
Hi -
> From: "Melinda Shore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Scott W Brim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified
> for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-crit
Hi -
> From: "David Romerstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: several messages
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
> > Agreed, but if those analogies are correct, they also undermi
Hi -
> From: "der Mouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: several messages
...
> Irrelevant. The existence of amateurishly-run DNSBLs does not imply
> the nonexistence of well-run ones. It _does_ mean that someone to whom
>
Hi -
> From: "Jonathan Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:49 PM
> Subject: Comments on Draft IRTF ASRG DNSBL - 07
...
> 2. The impact of DNSxL's when applied on Inbound Email Servers
> is significant with very little collateral damage.
...
I guess this depend
Hi -
> From: "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg]
> LastCall:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery(DHCPv6Bulk
> Leasequery)toProposed Standard
...
> Why does it matter if we've already agreed that SNMP's autodetection
...
Hi -
> From: "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:26 AM
> Subject: a modern-day SNMP use
...
> The short answer to your question, is that there exists today at
> least one monitoring package, albeit not commercially nor even freely
> available to the pub
Hi -
> From: "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last
> Call:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery(DHCPv6Bulk Leasequery) toProposed
> Standard
...
> If a DHCP relay knew what leases were present in a DHCP server befor
Hi -
> From: "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery(DHCPv6
> Bulk Leasequery) toProposed Standard
...
> If you don't know where "a single table of a single variable at time"
>
Hi -
> From: "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "DHC WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery(DHCPv6
> Bulk Leasequery) to Proposed Standard
...
> SNMP likes to present a single t
Hi -
> From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Lixia Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:08 PM
> Subject: Re: About IETF communication skills
...
> My experience with that reporter is similar. I came to believe that she
> saw it as her
Hi -
> From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "IETF Discussion"
> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:31 PM
> Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
...
> English is not case sensitive.
Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments
lacking other typographical means, such
Hi -
> From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "C. M. Heard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "IETF Discussion"
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:57 PM
> Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
...
> Are you saying that according to RFC 2119 "SHOULD" means something
> different tha
Hi -
> From: "Aditya JAIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:56 AM
> Subject: Operation permissions on Read-Only objects in a table
...
> Suppose we have a table in which some objects are read-only, and at least
> one columnar object which has MAX- ACCESS = read-create. D
Hi -
> From: "Chad Giffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "IETF"
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:38 AM
> Subject: 64bit time_t
...
> What do you think?
...
This has been addressed before.
See ITU Rec. X.743 http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.743/en
for one solution.
Randy
Hi -
> From: "Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'John C Klensin'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Dave Cridland'" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "'Pete Resnick'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:54 AM
> Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
Hi -
> From: "Melinda Shore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "IETF Discussion"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
...
> The only possible disadvantage I can see is if they're then
> cataloged as a serial rather than having individual call num
Hi -
> From: "Bernard Aboba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:40 PM
> Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
>
> I echo Tom Petch's concern.
>
> Given the level of deployment success of IETF management efforts
> for the last 5-10 years, I'd sug
Hi -
> From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
> Are they committed to doing the work?
The bulk of the work has bee
Hi -
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
of upsetting Eric Rescor
Hi -
> From: "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
> Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
> corresponding milestones) which specifies
Hi -
> From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
...
> And there's that word "automatically". There is nothing
Hi -
> From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
...
> And how do we provide suggestions to the Trustees in a formal manner?
...
If it's only a suggestio
Hi -
> From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action.
...
> c'mon neihter JFC nor LB has ever offered a draft,
JFTR https://datatracker.ietf.or
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
