Dave Crocker wrote:
At 08:35 AM 9/12/2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But you didn't respond to my comment that this issue *is* relevant to the
Last Call precisely because there was no discussion whether the work
should have been chartered in the first place, if it had been a WG submission
Mark,
I can't claim deep expertise but the people I work with who are building the
UDDI/WSDL/SOAP world have a very clear idea of what Web Services means. I agree
that the phrase is also used in a hand waving way too, but there is a kernel
of very precise technical solutions that is essentially
Interestingly enough, when we wrote RFC 1958 Architectural principles
of the Internet, nobody suggested layer violation is evil as a
principle. The arguments against layer violation tend to be pragmatic -
certain types of layer violation (such as content based routing)
could lead to complex
IPv8 is a joke. Unfortunately it is a joke that has gone on
too long and is still wasting people's time.
Brian
Don McMorris wrote:
Hello. I recieved[as all of you have] this link:
RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development
If we're into that, AIX has supported it since 1997.
Brian
Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
1. Which operating systems currently support it? I irun RedHat linux, =
and it does not, to my knowlege.
RedHat Linux 7.1 supports it just fine - am running a 2.4.5 kernel with
the USAGI IPv6
Markus Hofmann wrote:
Brian,
Because both the content originator and the content receiver should be
able to veto (say) ad insertion.
What about services that are executed only on behalf of the content
receiver? Virus scanning might be one example.
Other examples might be services
