John L wrote:
Do we know where the meeting will be yet? I see that registration was
supposed to start today.
I believe it will start in another couple of days.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Bob Braden wrote:
* The draft has expired so I need to point to an external version. This draft
* which is looking at the properties of a routing network under conditions of
* failure would have been much clearer if it could have used mathematical
* notation rather than ASCIIised equations
Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
that, each time the we really need pictures and fancy
formatting and need them frequently argument comes up, the vast
majority of those who make it most strongly are people whose
contributions to the IETF -- in designer, editor,
On 1/11/06, Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the tools team has not received any feedback or comments from the
RFC-Editor regarding the xml2rfc tool. If we had, we would have forwarded it
to the xml2rfc list.
Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
worked
On 1/10/06, Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:45 AM -0500 1/10/06, Brian Rosen wrote:
Do you have any idea how painful it is to build any kind of product that has
good management simply because there is no library of MIBs, with references
to documents? There isn't even a LIST of IETF
Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
that, each time the we really need pictures and fancy
formatting and need them frequently argument comes up, the vast
majority of those who make it most strongly are people whose
contributions to
--On Thursday, 12 January, 2006 12:28 +0100 Lars-Erik Jonsson
\\(LU/EAB\\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
that, each time the we really need pictures and fancy
formatting and need them frequently argument comes up, the
vast majority
On 1/12/06, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
increasing experience within the IETF and with our style of
developing and working on documents (not just publishing them)
tends to cause both patience and respect for the ASCII graphics
and formats to rise.
I'm surprised folks are
Stewart Bryant writes...
If linearised formulas were a good idea mathematicians would use them
:)
Translation to ASCII representation should surely be the final step in
implementation not something imposed during the understanding and
description phase.
If symbolic formulas were useful in
How about a new mailing list or some such?!
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the
observation that,
each time the we really need pictures and fancy formatting
and need
them frequently argument comes up, the vast majority
On 2006-01-12 14:50 Bill Fenner said the following:
Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
worked with Charles and Marshall directly instead of going through the
list; perhaps this was a mistake.
The comments from the RFC Editor can be found at
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 11 13:53:32 2006
* X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
autolearn=ham
*version=3.1.0
* Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:52:31 -0500
* From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bob Braden wrote:
...
Now, this may not actually be too bad; most of the changes at the nroff
stage are very cosmetic, and we could use diffs and perhaps other tools
to make it quite easy. OR, we could change the AUTH48 policy to let
the author(s) deal only with the edited xml, without the
Bob,
Suppose that we edit the document in XML (we are already
doing this part of the time), do a final nroffing pass to get the
format just right, and then give the author(s) the edited xml,
final .txt, and a diff file. (We could easily do this today).
The author(s) change the .xml (or give
On Thursday, January 12, 2006 08:50:26 AM -0500 Bill Fenner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
worked with Charles and Marshall directly instead of going through the
list; perhaps this was a mistake.
I don't think so. In order to
On Thursday, January 12, 2006 02:07:29 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob,
Suppose that we edit the document in XML (we are already
doing this part of the time), do a final nroffing pass to get the
format just right, and then give the author(s) the edited xml,
final
John, Stewart and others,
I believe some might have taken my previous note more
personally than intended, as well as John's. As also
made clear by John below, we both looked at this with
a significantly longer time-perspective than just the
last weeks or months, as these issues have been brought
Who is volunteering to maintain xml2rfc and guarantee backwards
compatibility for the next 20 years? (And why should
we believe them?)
Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
*
* 2. Given that the RFC Editor has the current practice of converting .txt
* submissions to nroff, it is equally reasonable to pursue their changing
that
* conversion, to instead be into xml2rfc.
Dave,
Are you suggesting that the IETF adopt the xml2rfc source as the
normative
Are you suggesting that the IETF adopt the xml2rfc source as the
normative version of a specification, rather than the .txt (or .pdf)
version?
yes.
as I understand your current operation, the *real* normative version is in
nroff.
i believe that an incremental process of switching to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeffrey Hutzelman
writes:
It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have two
stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of copy-editing, and
then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after the final conversion.
That
It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have two
stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of copy-editing, and
then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after the final conversion.
That assumes that the xml-nroff conversion is always error-free.
On 1/11/06, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Given that the RFC Editor has the current practice of converting .txt
submissions to nroff, it is equally reasonable to pursue their changing that
conversion, to instead be into xml2rfc.
I don't think that converting to xml is the same class
Dave sed:
Nroff has no current industry penetration.
fwiw - Nroff is on every Mac OSX shipped
it is a shell procedure that fronts groff
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I don't think that converting to xml is the same class of work.
There's a great deal of semantic information that should be encoded in
the XML that isn't in the submitted text and doesn't have to be in the
nroff.
Strictly speaking, you are certainly right.
But I lived with nroff for
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Bootstrapping TESLA '
draft-ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multicast Security Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam Hartman.
A URL of this
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Requirements for Internet Media Guides '
draft-ietf-mmusic-img-req-08.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Jon Peterson and Allison
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG to
consider the following document:
- 'A Resource Reservation Protocol Extension for the Reduction of Bandwidth of
a Reservation Flow '
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-bw-reduction-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'OPES SMTP Use Cases '
draft-ietf-opes-smtp-use-cases-06.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Open Pluggable Edge Services Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ted Hardie and Scott Hollenbeck.
A URL of this
30 matches
Mail list logo
