their
business models. Now they first had a Whine and Cheese party in Brussels ,
but getting no satisfaction there they now go to the UN to support their
untenable position.
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard
Minneapolis is infinitely more glamorous Frankfurt ..
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Bray
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:30 PM
To: Geoff Mulligan
Cc: Dave Crocker; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat?
Frankfurt
metro rail from the airport to the city and all of Washington's many
nonexistent charms.
.
On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
Minneapolis is infinitely more glamorous Frankfurt ..
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
+1 Prague was excellent .. I actually liked Quebec City but connections
were awful.
So where in Asia? You have to have the 3.
Is this discussion is really about are we the Internet Entertainment and
Travel Facility?? Some of us have employers some of us do not. Is this
about diversity
[RS ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was a
boondoggle. The Hilton in Minneapolis of all the IETF meetings Ive
attended has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc.
If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best
choice
+1 Excellent idea in principle ..IMHO just a matter of working out details.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Bradner, Scott
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:17 AM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
As a working assumption let's say at least 750 USD or Euros per hour to
calculate cost recovery.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
C Klensin
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:40 AM
To: IETF Administrative Director
Cc:
Aka the PSTN transition .
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/technological-advisory-council
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/TAC-WG-Ques-5-9-12.pdf
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
[RS ] +1 This is not just something we should do, its something we have to
do. I know the AD's try and keep a strong hand in talent spotting among the
WG chairs on who might succeed them, but one thing I believe WG chairs need
to do is appoint WG Secretaries. I always did. Limit the number of
that would not conflict with
full conference sponsorships. The Beer and Gear idea was perfect.
The question would be what day ..
Richard Shockey
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
http//www.sipforum.org
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf
.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2012/r120119.htm
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org
] On Behalf Of
Kevin P. Fleming
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:54 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: FYI : Canada's CRTC mandates all IP Interconnection for voice.
On 01/24/2012 02:28 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
/In this decision, the Commission decides that it is in the public
interest to establish
I'd like to whole heartedly endorse this suggestion and encourage a variety
of IETF Subject matter experts to give talks relevant to the FCC.
I personally help arrange two seminars at the FCC at the invitation of Doug
Sicker, Henning's predecessor as CTO
The first on was a tutorial on SIP and
It's a great appointment and the IETF community should rightfully be
thrilled and excited.
I'm a cross posting a note I made to the RAI DISPATCH List.
There are interesting things going on with core Layer 7 services and itsnot
US centric. Its is the beginning of the transition of the entire
+1
It would be helpful in the non normative statement to the community to cite
what suits were are involved, what was the cause of action and what if any
decisions were rendered in these cases.
US antitrust law, for instance has specific exemptions for SDO's.
15 or 20 years ago, I might have been able to use one of those
small-screen devices. Nowadays - no way. If things are
displayed large enough to be legible the amount of vertical
scrolling makes reading anything longer than one (short)
sentence painfully slow.
But here's a solution: let's just
Money for one discussions of product pricing and or costs for instance.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 5:12 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: Sam Hartman; IETF
Subject: Re: An
.epub I went over that months ago. EPUB 3.0 looks very functional. HTML 5
basis with LZW compression.
http://idpf.org/epub/30
Is this conversation evidence of global warming? Some of my daffodils and
narcissus are actually blooming here Northern Virginia. I usually thought
that the rants
pun intended
Just in case you don't have anything interesting to read on the plane back
from Tiawan.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1118/FCC-11-1
61A1.pdf
Selected passages of possible interest to the IETF RAI/SIP community are
Pages
29-32
210-240
268-292
Santa came early this year
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1110/DA-11-18
82A1.pdf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michel Py
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 12:05 AM
To: Worley, Dale R (Dale); Richard Shockey; John Leslie; IETF-Discussion
list
Subject: RE: The US Federal Communications Commission just sent
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michel Py
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:54 PM
To: Richard Shockey; John Leslie; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: RE: The US Federal Communications Commission just sent theIETF
RAI/SIPcommunity
I read it If you don't play nice .. we're going to make you. You are
going to eat your Broccoli and like it and no whining ..
From: George Willingmyre [mailto:g...@gtwassociates.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:01 PM
To: Richard Shockey; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: Re
Richard Shockey rich...@shockey.us wrote:
From: George Willingmyre [mailto:g...@gtwassociates.com]
I do not know what is the meaning of the sentence,
we expect all carriers to negotiate in good faith in response to
requests
for IP-to-IP interconnection for the exchange of voice traffic
identifiers would work. ( I gladly gave up my blue dot
recently)
We won!
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org
+1 to that as well ..an excellent proposal.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric
Burger
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:48 AM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
I would like to add my support here to Dave Crocker's very thoughtful and
IMHO accurate description of this revised draft. I share his views that the
substantive criticisms have not been addressed.
What exactly is the harm that this draft proposes to prevent? I can
certainly understand the
I want to offer my personal support for this BOF and encourage all members
of the IETF community to read the appropriate documents listed BEFORE
attending the BOF. The BOF has only 1 hour of time on Monday.
IMHO this is perhaps the most important BOF that will occur in Prague and
its
program.
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org
___
Ietf
The FCC challenges researchers and software developers to engage in research
and create apps that help consumers foster, measure, and protect Internet
openness.
http://challenge.gov/FCC/114-fcc-open-internet-apps-challenge
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board
http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1291536
National rollout of invasive pat-downs this week
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us mailto:richard
Because. Its not declining or disappearing .. just ask the mobile operators
who have added several billion new mobile handsets over the past few years.
Analog POTS is certainly dying but the E.164 namespace is doing even better
than domain names.
-Original Message-
From:
And finally, regarding:
It is unclear why this data is better maintained by the DNS
than in an unrelated application protocol.
If a device is performing an ENUM dip hoping to find a contactable SIP URI,
it is simply most efficient for the ENUM response to directly include the
Send-N metadata
, October 20, 2010 3:43 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: 'Ray Bellis'; draft-iab-dns-applicati...@tools.ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-iab-dns-applications - clarification re: Send-N
while I agree that the hierarchical and distributed nature of the DNS is
a scintillating, shimmering attractant
So what is your point ..you don't use phone numbers so the rest of the
planet shouldn't?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:42 PM
To: Paul Hoffman
Cc: bill manning; Richard Shockey; Ray Bellis;
draft-iab-dns-applicati...@tools.ietf.org
This document is a terrible attempt at an ex post facto architectural
decision that is significantly damaging to those of us who want to make
things in SIP work better. As a practical matter I want to know are all of
these proposals for PSTN metadata, trunk group, SPID, source URI etc are
And add to that one that Mr Burger should vaguely recall :-)
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt
Number Portability in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN):
An Overview
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
sigh Enough.. can we go back to travel tips now?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Bennett
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Livingood, Jason
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC
LTE for a start..
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ofer Inbar
[...@a.org]
P.S. My neighborhood is about as far from being a tech backwater as
it is possible to be in the world. Yet I still have only one viable
option
Well first .. I do want to congratulate Russ for actually injecting a bit of
sanity into the ongoing NN debate and I think we all know he was speaking as
a individual. I'm personally +1 on his comments. The problem we collectively
have is that there is very little or no technical clue in the NN
Paul of course I've read them, though the PVP document is uniquely
dense and gave me a headache. Security by ID Obscurity.
My assertion still stands. In the absence of any linkage in the PVP to
the E164 numbering authorities and or databases any assertion about
verification and
to ..but
From: Peter Musgrave [mailto:peter.musgr...@magorcorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:21 AM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: Lawrence Conroy; DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
Hi,
From my perspective what this is really about is the ability
to develop. This
is about truth in protocol development tm.
From: Peter Musgrave [mailto:peter.musgr...@magorcorp.com]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 9:15 AM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Mary Barnes; DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version
but the empirical
evidence indicates a uphill battle.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzi...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 1:43 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: 'Peter Musgrave'; 'DISPATCH'; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
Richard
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: Paul Kyzivat; DISPATCH
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
Hi Richard, folks,
[removing ietf-general as cross-posting this whole thread doesn't help,
IMHO]
I have remained silent so far, but just to clarify...
Richard is absolutely correct.
The comments
in the absence of any rational trust or security model you can
certainly publish something as Informational but getting something past the
IESG is another thing entirely.
From: Peter Musgrave [mailto:peter.musgr...@magorcorp.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 5:49 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc
A we already have centralized solutions for interdomain routing based on
E.164. its called ENUM in both its private and public instantiations. It
works pretty well BTW and globally deployed.
IMHO this charter is a non starter and should not be approved on the basis
of this statement alone.
Aka FaceTime?
Some of us in the RAI directorate would like to extend a welcoming hand. J
Plus see what the SDP looks like etc , interop options, naming, where is the
rendezvous server, etal.
Small stuff.
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP
you're complaining about,
but it works.)
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
On 4/8/2010 10:47 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
That was what I had in mind when I started this thread or maybe
configuration options for push of new WG drafts.
No browser including Safari displays ASCII text well
Lets not forget what this specification was attempting to solve, which has
been the well known boot strap problem with SIP-CUA's we have collectively
ignored since the creation of SIP, especially those that might use (dare I
say it) phone numbers. The model here is to make such things as SIP CUA's
That was what I had in mind when I started this thread or maybe
configuration options for push of new WG drafts.
No browser including Safari displays ASCII text well and that has been my
ultimate objection. It drives me nuts that I have to print out all new
drafts to actually read them ( sorry
Well if you are over 55 with bifocals, like me, you might have a issue. Which
is why tablet readers really are a boon.
On 04/08/2010 07:47 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
That was what I had in mind when I started this thread or maybe
configuration options for push of new WG drafts.
No browser
Message-
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich...@shockey.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:34 AM
Lets not forget what this specification was attempting to solve, which has
been the well known boot strap problem with SIP-CUA's we have collectively
ignored since the creation of SIP
And I want it now! Yes I'll pay thank you.
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype: rshockey101
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
http
About 10 to 15 USD would work fine for me BTW.
At least we should do it before the ITU and TIES does it .right? J
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Shockey
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 5:21 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Ok .. I want my
My my it must be springtime! Time for our annual food fight ritual of ASCII
in RFC's.
Actually I was thinking that the IETF should approach the International
Digital Publishing Forum with the thought that they consider making the
.epub format an IETF standard. .epub is getting considerable
I can see the motivation to pay big bucks for video codecs. Using
Mpeg4 can reduce your bandwidth costs and save real money. I can see
why there was a big incentive to save money on audio codecs in the
1990s.
At this point an audio codec is going to have to save a huge amount ot
+1 Emphatically
If people want to do the work, why not let them try.
If they cannot succeed then shut it down.
That does bring up the more sensitive subject that the IETF as a whole needs
to consider which is when can it be determined that a WG is not succeeding.
That is a much much longer
are located here as noted before.
http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/
Richard Shockey
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype/AIM: rshockey101
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Richard Shockey
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype/AIM: rshockey101
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
It will certainly get their attention ... :-)
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The IETF and the SmartGrid
Myself and others are deeply
; Richard Shockey; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The IETF and the SmartGrid
Hi Fred and Michael,
This is Hiroshi Esaki of WIDE project, Japan.
We have long time worked on the introduction of IP technology into the
faculity networks, especially focusing on the usage of IPv6.
We run
Time to move to Draft Standard.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1414248/SAs-Largest-Telecomms-Provid
er-vs-a-Pigeon
Richard Shockey
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype/AIM: rshockey101
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
Give it to the IETF obviously ...
http://blog.icann.org/2009/04/have-an-opinion-on-where-icann-should-spend-it
s-money/
Richard Shockey
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
skype: rshockey101
LinkedIn : www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
No business case for IPv6, survey finds But Internet Society members report
rising customer demand, deployment plans
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032009-ipv6-business-case.html?nladnam
e=032009dailynewspmalcode=nldailynewspm187866
Business incentives are completely lacking today for
+1 no brainer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Resnick
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:06 PM
To: Ray Pelletier
Cc: Working Group Chairs; IAB; IETF Discussion; IAOC; The IESG; RFC
Editor
Subject: Re: [IAOC] ISSN for RFC
Exactly .. I don't see the problem. I've not seen any evidence of abuse.
IMHO if the procedure is not broken why are we trying to fix it?
Why is the IETF so continuingly dragged about in these, frankly trivial,
process issues?
I won't repeat what others have said about the presence or
Can this be extended to WG naming rights as well. :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFC 5241 on Naming
And this coming from the Standards body that has developed SIP ...
unbelievable. I don't think I'm going to listen to any more arguments about
IPv6 experiments during Plenary's any more.
One thing the IAOC is looking at at this instant is our phone bill.
The IETF's phone budget for 2008
Thanks Bob ..as someone who had questions, I find this a perfectly
reasonable and rational explanation.
In the case of Dublin, the IAOC did understand that the sites
distance to Dublin wasn't ideal, but it was the only site we could
find in the area that meet the other requirements.
Is there an unwritten requirement that IETFs are placed to afford
us sightseeing?
You mean this isn't the Individual Enlightenment and Travel Foundation
mailing list ... oh so sorry.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
It's Ray's job to make the call. It's the IAOC's job to see that he
does his job well. I think Ray has at least earned the benefit of the
doubt.
I don't think so ..given the perfectly rational questions that are being
asked about this particular sub-optimal site, the community has a
: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:21 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: 'IAB'; 'IETF Discussion'; 'IAOC'
Subject: Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!
Richard,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:48:15PM -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
Sites that are substantially distant from city centers or major
this is it.
It is a ongoing privilege to make things like this happen.
This article BTW is the Number One emailed article currently on the NY Times
web site.
Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651
PSTN
A excellent start...
You forgot $500 for messages on the use of ASCII in RFC's.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:50 AM
To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds
Eric Gray The discussion is
In keeping with Eric Rosen's excellent thread ..
The simple solution is to charge 500 .. UK POUNDS!! for Internet Access
during the IETF meetings. This is clearly in keeping with standard
hotel/airport practices around the world.
This would clearly solve the budget problem as well as discourage
I love it just bomb the fux spammers
into submission.
Off we go into the wild cyber
yonder .Climbing high into IP ..
Or maybe
Over hill over dale we hit the
cyber trailFor its HI HI HEE in the Cyber Artillery ... and those
Caissons go rolling along.
From: Fred
Well said.. Incompetence and stupidity have never been an impediment to a
genuine democratic process. You only need look at the US Congress, UK
Parliament, German Bundestag, and Japanese Diet etal for evidence of that.
-Original Message-
From: Theodore Tso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And to that hopefully final note, lets not forget that taking on the
responsibility of NOMCOM chair is a generally thankless task that Andrew has
volunteered to do.
The process has to go forward and Harald is completely correct.
I was selected in the previous spin and if selected again Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion'
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
Richard Shockey wrote:
This seems to be on the IETF
Granted 3777 does not require the consultation of the community on disputes
involving the NOMCOM but given the highly unusual nature of the problem at
hand and the tendency of the IETF toward anal retentive behavior in matters
of process it seems reasonable to suggest that a wider set of views
I agree as well. Again, having started this charming little discussion
thread, any other course of action at this late stage would cause more
problems than it would solve.
R. Shockey
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 31,
As someone who was actually selected in the previous round and started this
little thread, I support this position.
I've reviewed the specification for this process, including the random
selection algorithm, several times over the past few years. I've always
believed the selection process
-Original Message-
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:55 PM
To: 'IETF-Discussion'
Subject: What is going on with the NOMCOM
Maybe my mail filters are failing but I understand there is a problem with
the selection process
the the sales figures
from the previous trading day - August 31, 2006. The list we will use is
the same as before, but with the IAB member's name removed. The list will
be sent in a separate mail.
Thank you.
Andrew
Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Maybe my mail filters are failing but I understand there is a problem with
the selection process.
Can some one explain this ASAP.
Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org
sip:5651(at)neustarlab.biz
On Monday, July 17, 2006 10:11:07 AM -0400 Jeffrey Altman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me Paris and Montreal were the
two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
ability to provide network access
-Original Message-
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:31 AM
To: Dave Cridland
Cc: IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
On 7/17/06 11:26 AM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Melinda's intention was to
familiar with Identity
related problems and protocols. I am a bit disturbed that a solution is
being proposed before the problem and the alternatives are throughly
investigated.
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
-
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN
Now can we get back to our regularly scheduled rants on the pro's an
con's of ASCII in RFC's?
--
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
: 2006-1-18
This document provides the IAD with technical and logistic criteria
for selecting venues for IETF meetings.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection
-criteria-04.txt
--
Richard Shockey, Director - Member
structure is very new and some what fragile and we should
not for the time being impose unwanted solutions on them they did not
solicit support for.
--
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip
point exactly, again many thanks for your clarity.
One possibility is to just leave it as an I-D, updating it
periodically as needed, but keeping it out there as a
perspective that the IAD might consider.
as Informational only.
--
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
hould be.
Real Time Applications is a pretty good descritpion of the general
problem set or maybe "Death to the PSTN Directorate?" .
can we just get on with it ?
Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listi
bankruptcy, layoffs, etc.
I'm sure we can expand on the model endlessly...
--Pekka Nikander
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000
?
Grumble Grumble .. burp
See you in Vancouver,
Spencer
From: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pekka Nikander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems or
alternatively Why IMS is a big fat
-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-routing-08.txt
__
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1
high people will look for ways to route around it.
NAT's have been the inevitable answer to the poor pricing policy of IP
numbering.
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
