Ok, Ok, I probably haven't been paying attention, but...
If a device implements a subset of IPv6, (e.g., no IPsec, no mobile
IP), is it generally understood that this device implements IPv6?
Has a standard subset of IPv6 been defined for very low-end devices
that simply can't implement a full
Can anyone point me towards a reference of
Dave Clark [allegedly] saying don't do
anything in a protocol that you wouldn't
do to Mars?
(Never mind that TCP isn't likely to actually
be used to Mars...)
Thanks,
-tjs
To: Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned
At 5:11 PM -0500 1/6/02, Gordon Cook wrote:
I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list. It returned
THREE to me. If everyone
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:24:19 -0600
From: Chip Rosenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: historical NIC activities report
My enfeebled brain vaguely recalls at one time there were periodic
reports (quarterly?) posted here that summarized Internet activity,
including domain processing
From: Lyndon Nerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:30:30 -0700
[...]
(BTW, if you want to reproduce the Minneapolis-in-winter
experience in Europe, I highly recommend Brighton in February.)
[...]
Just for the record, the
From: "Rosen, Brian" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: rfc publication suggestions
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:57:03 -0500
Just as a practical matter from recent experience.
Usually, an RFC originates as an IESG approved I-D.
Usually, you don't submit nroff for an I-D.
The RFC editor never
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IETF logistics
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:49:47 -0500
What we can do for future IETFs is make the current
sporadic practice of reserving the front few rows of seats for
folks who have actually read the drafts and
