On 4/8/00 at 5:40 PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
document not relevant.
I'm not
Folks,
The time between ietf list discussions about patent issues seems to be
getting smaller. Unfortunately, there is not much that the IETF can do
about patent law, in the U.S. or elsewhere.
(Also, based on my own very limited exposure to that realm, it seems clear
that only a very small
At 12:54 09.04.2000 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
You need to go back and read the message to which you are responding
again. Technical merit is specifically *not* a factor in deciding
publication of an Experimental or Informational document.
For those who believe this, please check out the
On 4/9/00 at 8:21 PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
For those who believe this, please check out the technical merit of
draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-05.txt, and ask
yourselves if this should be published as an RFC.
It should not. See my message to Vernon. But it's
Henning;
The current issue of The Economist discusses the state of the current
patent system. It refers to a site www.bustpatents.com, which may be of
interest in this regard.
As usual, the articles there are useless, because:
Only a very small percentage of those participating in
For those who believe this, please check out the technical merit of
draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-05.txt, and ask
yourselves if this should be published as an RFC.
It should not. See my message to Vernon. But it's not because it
lacks technical merit that it shouldn't
From: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...He suggested that we allow them to document current practice.
Do I understand correctly that you think that
draft-terrell-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-addr-cls-02.txt
should have been published as an RFC?
Uh, no. I see no deployed support for this document
On 4/9/00 at 2:06 PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uh, no. I see no deployed support for this document and therefore see
no relevance to the Internet community to have this document
published. If noone on the Internet is doing it and I'm
At 01:39 PM 4/9/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I am
fully in agreement that interception proxies imposed anyplace other
than either endpoint of the connection is a Bad Idea, because a third
Exactly. And after having read this specification, I also think these issues
are
g'day,
Dave Crocker wrote:
. . .
It strikes me that it would be much, much more productive to fire up a
working group focused on this topic, since we have known of the application
level need for about 12 years, if not longer.
Which raises the interesting question as to what the
At 01:39 PM 4/9/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I am
fully in agreement that interception proxies imposed anyplace other
than either endpoint of the connection is a Bad Idea, because a third
Exactly. And after having read this specification, I also think these issues
At 03:35 AM 4/9/00 -0400, Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
Which raises the interesting question as to what the participants would
hope to
be the outcome of such a working group and whether we could possibly move
towards something ressembling a technical consensus, given the current
On 4/9/00 at 12:39 PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]the RFC Editor exercises editorial control over the RFC series,
but doesn't specify exactly what editorial control means.
Actually, Harald's quote from 2026 does make it pretty clear:
Section 4.2.3:
The RFC Editor
is
At 03:42 PM 4/9/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are confusing topological locality with administrative locality. I was
talking about the latter, and so, I believe, was Valdis.
As my later comment meant to convey, I too was clear about the distinction,
but yes I was definitely confused
At 03:51 PM 4/8/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
If the IETF engages in routine non-acceptance of "informational" documents
on the basis of non-technical concerns the IETF will, I believe, lose its
clear and loud voice when that voice is most needed to be heard.
That's a valid concern. The
At 14.35 -0700 2000-04-09, Dave Crocker wrote:
Let's remember that a major goal of these facilities is to get a
user to a server that is 'close' to the user. Having interception
done only at distant, localized server farm facilities will not
achieve that goal.
Further, I'm unclear about the
16 matches
Mail list logo
