... we should prefer technology which will be available
royalty-free, but that's not current policy
Whose policy?
Some WGs have a policy (or are actually chartered) to develop deployable
protocols. Where a legal issue would make a protocol non-deployable, we have to
look elsewhere. (Of
I think the most effective thing would be to send a strong signal of some
kind: If you patent technologies and give non-RF licenses, _do not expect
the technology be supported in IETF at all_.
The problem is that there are enough companies out there that don't care.
There are some areas of
Somebody is running a number of ad-hoc nodes (or one chameleon-style node) in
the 802.11b airspace of the IETF meeting. This is bad enough as it is not
coordinated with the site's frequency plan. It is even worse when at least one
of the nodes uses the SSID IETF, which causes all Macs (and a
Japan can use all 14 WiFi channels (World/ETSI can use 13, US/FCC 11).
The IETF network was restricted to the US 11 channels, obviously so that users
of US cards would not be left cold.
On Monday, and for some time on Wednesday, there were problems with overlapping
channels. In WiFi, channel
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-termroom-op-07.txt
... which contains surprisingly little information about radio network
planning.
This has been wrong on most IETF Monday mornings, and tends to get
fixed slowly during the week.
How are the lessons learned relayed to the next
(I've seen moderator used in 2 ways - the summarize and state
consensus role Carsten mentions below, and the sanction
inappropriate behaviour role that is commonly used with mailing list
moderator - these roles don't have to be done by the same person)
Ah, words.
Moderator in the sense of
The biggest questions I have are:
- where to put this bit?
Right now, the *only* way an L2 with varied service levels can derive
what service levels to use for best-effort traffic is to perform a
layer violation. Continuing this tradition, the bit would be:
How would an app know to set this bit? The problem is that different
L2s will have different likelihoods of corruption; you may decide that
it's safe to set the bit on Ethernet, but not on 802.11*.
Aah, there's the confusion. The apps we have in mind would think that
it is pointless (but
- Some pages claim not compatible with your US handset -- i.e. no
CDMA roaming
Ole,
I remember from the last time I worked on Korean CDMA systems they had
a different frequency (1700 MHz?).
Gruesse, Carsten
As for those people who run around with their cards in ad hoc mode,
yes,
especially here, they should know better.
One problem may be those helpful features where the OS is switching
to ad-hoc when there is no base station to be seen. In Mac OS X 10.2,
you can disable that (switch off Allow
it turned out that when I replaced my Linksys 802.11b with
a brand new Motorola 802.11g the problem went away; there is a Radio
Shark on the third floor of City Center that sells them for $70.
Similarly, when I put a $70 Linksys WPC54G (directly supported by Mac
OS X 10.2.8) into my Powerbook to
Interestingly, on the .1X SSID, I get 14 % loss and delays up to 8000
ms (!).
The open SSID is about 0 % loss (didn't wait for the first loss long
enough) and 60 ms on average.
Just a data point why I'm back in the open net.
Gruesse, Carsten
___
Ietf
On Oct 21 2004, at 17:49 Uhr, Tim Bray wrote:
If the IETF wants to ignore history and build an Internet where that
doesn't hold, feel free, but it's not a very interesting kind of
place.
This has been rehashed a lot, but there are two little facts left out
from the current repetition of the
On Nov 06 2004, at 21:27 Uhr, Stephane H. Maes wrote:
disfranchised
If you really have to continue your crusade on the IETF list, can you
at least stop using this word (assuming you mean disenfranchised)?
There is no voting in the IETF, so you can't be deprived of any voting
right.
Gruesse,
On Nov 07 2004, at 07:36 Uhr, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Disfrachise is a perfectly good word. I believe it means exactly what
Stephane intended it
to mean...
Probably.
That's why I spoke up.
To deprive of a franchise or chartered right; to dispossess of the
rights of a citizen,
or of a particular
On Nov 10 2004, at 14:18 Uhr, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
By the way, the press should take note about Airespace marketing versus
reality. I hope this company can be honest an make a public correction
on
that, otherwise customers should not trust them anymore.
Oh, come on, give them some slack.
On Nov 18 2004, at 10:26 Uhr, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
if there is no hassle like [...] paying for this and that
I'm a bit afraid there are players in this game that won't let us
completely eliminate that hassle.
Obviously, a situation where a /48 can only be obtained at business
rates leads
On Dec 16 2004, at 12:46 Uhr, Eliot Lear wrote:
RFC1618 PPP over ISDN
We had a short discussion about this in pppext.
The gist was: The document is pretty bad (partly because things were
murky in 1994, but also because it was written by Martians that had no
space ship to take them to the
On Dec 16 2004, at 14:02 Uhr, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
RFC0885 Telnet end of record option
This option was, at least at one time, used for telnet clients that
connected to IBM mainframes... It was used to indicate the end of a
3270 datastream.
... and 5250 (RFC2877).
Note that there was
Why do we care if there are still implementations that are based on
these documents in use?
The important question is whether there are going to be new or revised
implementations based on these documents.
A new implementation for tn5250 is about as likely as a new
implementation for NTP.
On Dec 16 2004, at 18:13 Uhr, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
please read draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt, in particular section 3.2,
Ah good, I did.
o Usage. A standard that is widely used should probably be left
alone (better it should be advanced, but that is beyond the scope
I'm seeing a lot of confusion in this thread.
In the past, we have had real problems with wireless.
802.11 implementations are too easy to confuse by stations with random
settings, we have seen our share of stations that switched to
ad-hoc/IBSS mode when there were connection problems, drawing
On Mar 14 2005, at 14:07 Uhr, Keith Moore wrote:
we used to get a lot more work done when we used our meetings
primarily for discussion rather than scheduling presentations for most
or all of the meeting time.
Yes. WG chairs planning WG meetings, take note.
But then, one difference is that a
Lucy,
congratulations, but First intercontinental videoconference from the
air; hmm.
Some of us have done this before (using iChat, no less).
Gruesse, Carsten
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Mar 16 2005, at 19:33 Uhr, Dave Crocker wrote:
Cheap and easy travel and lodging, for diverse participation
I wouldn't want to completely rule out the US that quickly...
Gruesse, Carsten (who has had to stand in for a colleague with a Sri
Lanka passport on 2 out of 3 IETFs recently)
On Mar 17 2005, at 19:40 Uhr, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
they could have broken out the emergency AP's and provided worse
coverage to fewer areas than we had last week. It would have been
better than nothing, but it would _not_ have been better than what we
got.
Actually, for those of us who had
On Mar 21 2005, at 17:53 Uhr, Baker Fred wrote:
worries about pick-pockets, the number of airports one has to go
through to get to them, likelihood of being able to get a meal on
schedule (which is a question of customs - many places in Europe a
restaurant assumes that you don't enter the
On Apr 02 2005, at 15:35 Uhr, Sam Hartman wrote:
Similarly the
rest of the world would like to show that we should have the meetings
closer to them.
You are making an assumption about the motives of the people that point
out the continuing decline of suitability of the US as a meeting place
for
Now that the two previous main concerns about the Paris IETF are
under control (nobody has died from the heat yet and the pocket loss
rate is at the expected levels), I have a real problem that is
actually hindering the work:
Coach class.
Opening the laptop in the seat arrangement
On Aug 03 2005, at 12:38 Uhr, Joerg Ott wrote:
we should consider to organize out future meetings in a
similar fashion.
Yes, yes, yes!
Another really useful feature here in Paris were the tables for sit-
down breakfast.
Result: Productive breakfast meetings.
Gruesse, Carsten
On Nov 09 2005, at 06:27 Uhr, John C Klensin wrote:
I've only occasionally found the network stable enough
At the danger of spilling the beans:
Once I switched may laptop to .11a, the network has been rock-solid.
(I ran a ping yesterday, and it did not lose *a single packet* on the
On Nov 10 2005, at 14:34 Uhr, Gray, Eric wrote:
people wanting to have a private ad hoc network ought
to look at the frequencies being used by local base-stations
so that their signals do not interfere with people using the
infrastructure mode.
Paradoxically, they have to use *the same*
Guidelines would be nice, but wouldn't help here:
The evidence seems to identify systems as the culprits with operating
systems that have not been upgraded in the last half-decade.
Those won't benefit from new information.
(I don't want to start discussion about the economic realities that
On Nov 15 2005, at 18:47 Uhr, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
Every little open source software project uses version control systems
these days. The IETF does not.
Many WGs, of course, do, in scattered places, using random identity/
authentication schemes, depending on individuals for hosting
On Nov 15 2005, at 21:48 Uhr, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think anyone participating in the
session will modify its own slides during the session.
You cannot have been to IETFs much, have you? :-)
People modify their slides even *during their presentation* all the
time, certainly
airline miles
Don't know, but related trivia:
On the IETF pain scale, I have crossed 230.5 timezones (and, apart
from Dallas, the same number back) on the way to IETF meetings so
far, which would be equivalent to going around the earth nearly 20
times just for IETF meetings (not countint
On Mar 22 2006, at 13:00, Tim Chown wrote:
non-US citizen
Sure, get a credit card from a US bank with a US billing address.
No comment (to forestall incessant ranting about *DELETED* 20th
century policies).
Gruesse, Carsten
___
Ietf mailing
On Jun 05 2006, at 23:43 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What is considered best practice for encoding data in protocols
within the IETF's purview?
The best practice is to choose an encoding that is appropriate for
the protocol being designed.
(There is no single answer.)
Maybe you can be
A little post script to this discussion: I wrote a few small test
programs in C to evaluate the performance of reading integers from
a text file using stdio.h versus doing the same with direct read()
s from a binary file. The difference is between two and three
orders of magnitude. See
Well, http://pingsta.com/terms.php was written by a lawyer (so I
can't claim to understand it), but the gist is that you give Pingsta
the rights to everything you put in there but are not allowed to make
anything in there available in the open (derivative works).
They clearly haven't
On Jul 30 2007, at 16:46, John C Klensin wrote:
meetings held in tourist
destinations
Is that *really* still an issue for anyone?
It's not that the IETF is considered a boondoggle org (like some
other standards organizations I have known).
Places like Mallorca in Spain (or Orlando in
just a press release
Slightly more than a press release:
http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/htdocs/news/2008/031208-ipv6-ietf.htmlpagename=/news/2008/031208-ipv6-ietf.htmlpageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/031208-ipv6-ietf.htmlsite=lanwan
On Aug 01 2008, at 08:53, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
problem
The problem is that the spin of the article is that NATs are being
added to IPv6 itself (which is a misleading statement when taken at
face value, actually surprising, hence perceived as sensational), when
in reality they are being
Ten years ago, on August 10, 1998, the IESG announced the protocol
action to make a set of Internet-Drafts into Draft Standards, now RFC
2460 to RFC 2463. For many of us this marked the end of the gestation
and the start of what has become a long, long deployment process.
In these ten
On Dec 1, 2008, at 15:43 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Process control doesn't need IP at all at the
edge of their network.
This is a side-track, but:
Some people in the IETF, as well as in the industry, might disagree...
Watch out for the next billion nodes on the Internet.
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
While I have a lot of sympathy for the cause, I have very little
sympathy for the methods.
Rendering a mailing list that might be useful for actually resolving
the issue inoperative by a campaign is idiotic.
Somebody from I* (the IETF chair
On Feb 10, 2009, at 15:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
The IETF should be *thrilled* that so many people care!
In a world with unlimited time, yes. In the real world, polluting the
discourse by hundreds of more or less unconsidered knee-jerk reactions
just makes sure that *I* can't take
On Feb 9, 2009, at 23:55, Carsten Bormann wrote:
not the way to win friends and impress people
I sincerely apologize for sending a message that has elicited (much
belated) responses from *both* TSG and av8.
I wonder if a shower is enough to get the troll spit off my face.
(I certainly
On May 24, 2009, at 22:04, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
you can order the tickets online and
they will arrive (at least to California) in less than a week
Nowadays, we tend to print them ourselves (www.bahn.de supplies them
as PDF), this is confusingly called online-ticket at Deutsche Bahn.
You need
Unless I'm mistaken, the ICE requires a reservation.
You are mistaken.
No, it doesn't. (Sprinter trains do, but they are not relevant here.)
(But, yes. it's nice to have a reservation -- actually, get as many of
them as you need :-)
Again, these are easy to get on-line.
At the Paris IETF I
On May 27, 2009, at 20:40, Doug Otis wrote:
[...no way to...] remain compliant with any fixed architectural
concept
We might need a new document class, Best Current Architecture (kind
of the inverse of BCP).
Gruesse, Carsten
___
Ietf mailing
On Jul 3, 2009, at 19:49, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
1. The recent boilerplate/process-change events have resulted in a
situation where the most-recommended tool for preparing IETF documents
does not work at all in its stable version.
To me, 1.34pre3 appears to be exactly as stable as 1.33
What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard
issue word processor.
Why? I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor,
this might
be feasible, but I think by standard issue you mean commercially
available.
http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/
Commercial, and the
On Jul 6, 2009, at 15:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I have actually run into a somewhat cryptic error message (which I was
unable to reproduce on earlier releases, but which I was also unable
to reproduce consistently anyway), and I've seen some other reports of
issues with 1.34pre3, so it appears
On Sep 18, 2009, at 17:42, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The IAOC does believe that this
condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business.
Marshall,
I also do not believe that the IETF needs to violate this condition to
do its business.
However, in this case there are two
On Sep 22, 2009, at 12:35, pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
3) According to RFC 4224, ROHC segmentation does not work over
reordering channels. Thus, it seems suggesting that ROHC
segmentation could be used instead of pre-encryption fragmentation
(e.g. ipsec-extensions, Section 3.3) -- and in
On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:28, Tony Hansen wrote:
published directly at Draft Standard status
Raise the bar so they stay at I-D level for even longer? A sizable
part of the Internet is run on I-Ds, not on PS.
I think the right direction is to publish PS earlier. If done right,
it's only
On Mar 29, 2010, at 00:56, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
From Frankfurt it is (of course) faster to take a high speed train, and from
Paris it's the only option. The downside of high speed trains is that you
can't just hop on like on a regular train, you need to book or reserve a
seat on a
On Mar 29, 2010, at 12:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
suitable for travel to Maastricht, such as Cologne/Köln
More useful from, say, the US (often surprisingly inexpensive), and quite
reasonably connected to Maastricht: Duesseldorf (DUS).
I'd probably look for BRU, DUS, AMS, FRA (in that
On Jun 23, 2010, at 15:06, Martin Rex wrote:
optimizing for their own interest alone
I don't know about you, but when I set up a server, I have a strong interest
that my clients get their data fast.
So whatever it takes to do that, is in my interest.
BTW, initial analyses of iOS 4 (iPhone OS)
On Jun 25, 2010, at 09:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
trying v6 for a couple of seconds before trying v4 in parallel
I don't think this is realistic for applications like the Web, where people are
now creating Youtube-Spots with high-speed cameras that show, in slow-motion, a
potato cannon
On Jun 25, 2010, at 16:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
initial phase of contact with a server
To get the front page of the New York Times (http://www,nytimes.com), a
server a couple of minutes ago meant
http://admin.brightcove.com/
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/
http://creativeby1.unicast.com/
On Jul 30, 2010, at 14:54, Jari Arkko wrote:
people consistently referring to the meetings as BOFs,
The fix is to call the formal working group formation planning meetings
working group formation planning meetings, not to stop calling the literal
BoF meetings BoFs. A lot of conferences have
OK Jordi, you fell victim to a marketing site.
I've got some news for you: Not every site on the Web has accurate information.
Let me explain how that works. Something new comes along (say, a new train
service) and marketing material (a web site) is generated. Some budget is set
aside. The
But while we're at the topic of *running* xml2rfc: I always advise people to
run it locally;
One problem is that the default way of doing references in RFC 2629 XML
appears to perform an online fetch of the reference information for each build,
with no caching whatsoever. If you do have to
Yes, that's why I always recommend not to use that style.
But hardwiring the references in the XML leads to manual updating (and
forgetting that).
Having a tool for that is useful here (which is why kramdown-rfc2629 does this).
BTW, if you are on a Mac, get one of the package managers
On Jan 27, 2011, at 09:52, Lars Eggert wrote:
all new protocols should
be security-capable
Sure.
How is this relevant?
In some protocols, there is value to use them without communication security
(think TLS) for some applications, and with communication security for others.
We used to
On Feb 15, 2011, at 21:46, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
(readable E-Mail)
How did you manage to get Apple Mail to properly use RFC 3676, i.e.
; Format=flowed; DelSp=yes
on the Content-Type? Apple broke that in 10.6, IIRC.
(Not that solving this problem on the sender side would solve it for
On Jun 20, 2011, at 15:31, Cullen Jennings wrote:
This is all a sort of confusing point of many IETF documents and not unique
to this one. I think the important points is that for many IETF documents,
the people listed on the front page are not the authors. Typically the list
of authors is
On Aug 9, 2011, at 20:30, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
We worry too little about the opportunity cost of the passage of time, so we
fight time-consuming battles. We should instead be trying to build an
optimal pipeline of incremental progress in a generally positive direction,
On Oct 29, 2011, at 12:58, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Pandoc that in combination with Make and XSLT scripting to can produce
internet-drafts in XML format
Nice!
There also is kramdown-rfc2629.
See the example at https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 (the stupid.mkd
there is the source for an
It is mostly straightforward to obtain markdown format from an existing RFC or
similar formatted text, and I have used this to manually compile input from
various sources into one I-D.
Doing this in a fully automatic way would probably need some more heuristics,
e.g., for cross-reference
Hi Don,
thanks for the feedback.
link-format has been essentially stable for the better part of a year now (as
the result of dispatching of the comments on the first WGLC in -03, IIRC). It
has been used in a number of informal interop events, and the feedback always
was that it did its job
On Feb 16, 2012, at 19:52, Don Sturek wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Somehow, luck is not how I would have described the process.
I think if you thought it important enough to do a WGLC in November 2011,
you maybe should have made it for longer than a week
I did.
and avoided the US
Thanksgiving
On Apr 27, 2012, at 16:41, Yoav Nir wrote:
Before 19502.9%
1950 - 1960 16.6%
1961 - 1970 33.7%
1971 - 1980 32.8%
After 198014.0%
Nice bell curve, יואב, but you can't pop that soap bubble of perception with
the bluntness of raw data :-)
Maybe just the areas where PHB
On May 19, 2012, at 08:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Very seriously - after all that has been said on this thread, I see
no reason to change anything.
+1
This is one of those issues that is best addressed by *awareness*, not by new
rules.
Grüße, Carsten
On May 24, 2012, at 16:12, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
For what it is worth, here is my opinion on this subject (which I was
asked to post here).
I see possible privacy law problems with posting the blue sheets, so
I would not.
I see a good reason to scan and have images of new blue sheets,
On Jul 22, 2012, at 21:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
IETF volunteers will not be paid from these fees.
I've been following this discussion only with one ear, but, I can't figure out
why somebody would volunteer to do this.
Grüße, Carsten
On Jul 23, 2012, at 14:28, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
you need to take into account at least both the Friday and Monday in some
countries.
+1
In much of Europe, the Easter holidays run from Good Friday to Easter Monday,
and exhibit
-- strong travel activity
-- zero to reduced opening times
Not yet quite optimal for e.g. RFC 3095:
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/citation/?doc=3095template=%7Bauthors.andlist%7D%2C+%22%7Bdoctitle%7D%2C%22+%7Bdocname%7D%2C+%7Bdate%3A%25B+%25Y.%7Dsubmit=Generate+citation
Grüße, Carsten
On Aug 6, 2012, at 16:41, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best
choice IMHO.
+1 a lot.
(If we indeed have to choose the US.)
Great facility to get work done, good food, reasonable flights.
And add Prague as
On Aug 8, 2012, at 22:38, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
If you've never had the time to watch a Meetecho session recording,
OMG, was the audio recovered from air bubbling up from a submarine or what
happened?
Oh, and maybe somebody can explain the value of the audio spectrum
On Aug 9, 2012, at 00:37, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
It's surely not perfect, but given the technology being used, it's certainly
good enough
I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, and the audio simply needs to be
better to be legible for my ears.
With Audio Hijack
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with
Randy Bush:
On Aug 12, 2012, at 00:51, Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote:
singing this statement is the right thing to do
For 0.29 seconds, I imagined you in front of a microphone in a recording
studio, singing Modern Global Standards Paradigm to the tune of All the
young dudes. For 0.29 seconds...
On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
transferred by government decree to a secretive
agency of
On Aug 13, 2012, at 04:58, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
Why is it useful?
Because it elicits considered reactions like yours and Mike StJohns', and
allows us to make explicit and affirm the (rough) consensus that we seem to
share about the role and purview of our
On Sep 8, 2012, at 13:02, Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.com wrote:
Keeping I-D's around forever is incredibly important form a historical,
technical, and legal perspective. They people understand how we work, think,
and develop protocols (history). They help people what was tried and
On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:46, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
If someone wants to provide guidance on how to do a least bad job
with Outlook, that will be gratefully received.
I'm not an expert for this, but, as far as I am aware of, it has not been
possible to
On Sep 11, 2012, at 15:10, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion,
I'm not privy to the circumstances that caused the original proposal to come up.
Maybe the reason was that the IESG *wants* its hands bound so there is no
further need
On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to
the community.
Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm interested in.
Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or one
On Sep 20, 2012, at 18:49, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I personally don't consider it very likely that someone would
actually sue or convince some appropriate prosecutor to come
after us. But, however one assesses the likelihood of that
happening and of that party winning, I
On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:22, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time
had been expired for a year.
The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be).
Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
stuff that's utterly incompressible
In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot.
(SCNR. I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this
point, anyway.)
Grüße, Carsten
On Oct 24, 2012, at 06:20, David Sheets kosmo...@gmail.com wrote:
WHATWGRL
Hey, call them EARLs. Error-tolerant web-Address Repairing Labels or whatever.
(Just not URLs, that term is already taken in the Web.)
Grüße, Carsten
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into
force.
I'm still amazed at the number of messages the resolution of this issue has
generated.
There
On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new
On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
_punitive_
Again, you are confused.
This action is not about punishing an individual, and I would be violently
opposed to it if it were.
This is my last message on this.
I'm repulsed by the idea of discussing this under this
On Nov 12, 2012, at 19:09, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Some people believe that the presence of an IETF meeting serves as a kind of
recruitment marketing to a region, for IETF participation. Beyond the
single-meeting boost in 'local' attendance, I believe we have no data
On Nov 14, 2012, at 20:59, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
(Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
gaining local mindshare and relevance.
I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language. But I
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
