So, a while ago a news article appeared on Google News as apparently
current but, when you actually looked at it, was a six year old
article about United Airlines filing for bankruptcy. UAL stock lost
$1B in value before the confusion was straightened out.
It's not that bad but right now if you
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote:
...
If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains trademarked
words, it isn't sufficient for the old contributor to have signed the
IETF Trust form if the document contains trademarks. You need to
contact
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.orgwrote:
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org
wrote:
...
If you are updating a pre-RFC 5378 document that contains trademarked
words, it isn't
Seems like a fine idea.Donald
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Enterprise Number for Documentation Use '
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 25 mei 2009, at 23:33, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Of all the people who have to travel to this meeting, I would not have
imagined that you would be the one to complain.
It just doesn't make sense to me to meet in
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
This draft does two things in connection with the
I just do my drafts in nroff and edit with emacs.
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
d3e...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Stefan Santessonste...@aaa-sec.com wrote:
To respond to the original question.
For what it is worth, I have written a simple and
It's trivial to define nroff macros to create a Table of Contents.
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Stefan Santessonste...@aaa-sec.com wrote:
As I
Just be sure they are labeled Reprint.
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:40 AM, James M. Polkjmp...@cisco.com wrote:
This is a cool design, I agree.
With
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
This document defines seven RADIUS Attributes to support
Hi Glen,
See below...
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Glen Zorng...@net-zen.net wrote:
Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com] writes:
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. Document
Yes, the changes below look good to me.
Thanks,
Donald
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Glen Zorng...@net-zen.net wrote:
Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com] writes:
...
The wording in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 see to almost be designed to
allow
the possibility of the multiple *-Cert
Looks OK to me,
Donald
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Glen Zorng...@net-zen.net wrote:
…
PKMv1 has some fairly serious security problems that are described here:
http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/SNPD.2008.138
So I think the question is whether this document can make
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Adam Roacha...@nostrum.com wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
...
Remember also that in terms of the text being a recommendation, this is
not a change in practice. This is the practice we have had for more than
the last 15 years. If, for Independent Submissions,
Sam,
The burden of proof rests on those like you who wish to change the
independent stream from a respected independent publishing channel to
something subservient to the Area Directors, a change which seems
entirely gratuitous without any historically demonstrated need.
Donald
On Wed, Sep 9,
John,
I can back most of your statement and the things you do but that below
is just absolutely absurd.
The RFID badge thing originated in the HOST not in IASA. It is
entirely within normal facilities arrangement and negotiation to use
pre-existing badge arrangements, particularly where there is
To quote from Wikipedia: Most national laws of the People's Republic
of China do not apply to the Special Administrative Regions of Hong
Kong or Macau. There are no known cases of the Chinese authorities
censoring critical political or religious [Internet] content in those
territories.
I am
Steve,
No, ignoring extreme situations and unless a promise of no Internet
access censorship for the IETF meeting can be obtained, it is a choice
between endorsing censorship or opposing it. Networks censored on a
political, religious, and cultural basis do not Bring People
Together.
Your
This is an early security directorate review at the request of the working
group.
This draft is of extensions to existing drafts. Those existing
drafts permit a Device to request its location using HTTP based on the
source IP address in the requesting packets and include security
precautions
If you read the definitions and theoretic criterial for Proposed versus
Draft, it makes a lot of sense. Proposed is just proposed and
non-injurious to the Internet. Draft required interoperability of
independent implementations and is the first level where widespread
implementation is recommended.
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
call comments.
This informational draft specifies a multicast
Periodically, there are flame wars on the IETF mailing list that the
IETF should / shouldn't adopt the latest fad is document formats,
postscript, PDF, whatever, since, after all, everyone uses them,
claims they are too complicated and keep changing resulting in
version/font/... problems are
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:32:49AM -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote:
version/font/... problems are overblow, etc. As a data point, I would
refer people to
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/031010-hackers-love-to-exploit
I think the ISO standard is fine. Multi-letter month abbreviations are
probably OK but are a little different in different languages. Lets
stick with 2010-01-02.
Thanks,
Donald
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Cullen Jennings allegedly wrote on 03/13/2010
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
...
And if we should change anything about the Author's Address section,
then it would be to replace the contact information with URLs
to an IETF web server where each author can update/maintain his
contact information.
No.
would avoid making the false promise
that RFCs are available online.
Donald
On Mar 20, 2010 11:18 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
...
And if we should change anything about the Author's Address section
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Lou Berger lber...@labn.net wrote:
I asked Ray about this problem in Hiroshima, his response was something
along the lines of conference rates are different and more complicated
from regular hotel rates. I have to say, I really think the community
deserves a
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Mark Atwood m...@mark.atwood.name wrote:
Much of what makes the IETF work is how it is very different from other
standards bodies (such as IEEE, ANSI, ISO, NIST, ITU, etc etc).
One key difference is that groups do not join the IETF.
That's part of it but
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com wrote:
If this is true it make me wonder why does the IETF care about the
affiliation of WG chairs and ADs
Roni Even
The reason traditionally given that IETF participants in general give their
affiliation is for purposes of
There is no such rule in the IETF, although perhaps patent discussions
need some moderation to avoid becoming ratholes. To quote some pieces
of text from RFC 3669 (which I recommend you read in full):
It's all right, and sometimes beneficial, to discuss IPR claims
and gather information
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote:
Florian Weimer writes:
Okay, you're using Mailman to administrate team membership. Let me say
that I think this is a bit bizarre, but it's some sort of technical reason.
(Other organizations keep team rosters
All human systems of sufficient size and significance need a means of
protection from abuse of process. This IETF process uses email and
thus needs protection from the abuse thereof.
In my opinion, the IETF method of deciding to bar people from various
mailing lists is fine and the IETF is pretty
I think the policy recommended by the IESG is the right thing.
Since IETF WGs operate via their mailing lists, IETF meeting are for
cross area / cross WG interaction, which only works for people there a
significant part of the week. This is the reason why the IETF has
traditionally refused to
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
...
Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not
consider the NOMCOM ramifications. If I had, I think it would likely that I
would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
concern for their level of interest. As far
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense
It's all bit complicated but, yes, anyone can publish copies of RFCs,
including translations into other languages. (See
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.pdffor
latest provisions.)
Patent questions can be even more complex but, generally speaking,
The sniffed passwords were sometimes displayed in real time on a
monitor facing the audience from the front of the room. This activity
was never called research that I can recall. I think the majority
reaction was that this was a fine thing to motivate improvements in
security practice. Only one
See belos ...
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
wrote:
No, if you read my book you would see the scheme I am proposing.
The problem with current MAC addresses is that they are not
trustworthy. That is accepted. If MAC addresses were not trivially
I can see the desire to have some more experience on the nomcom.
However, I am completely opposed to invidious schemes to divide the nomcom
voting members into two (or more) classes. And I think the desired results
can be obtained without doing so.
The current qualification is attendance 3 out
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.comwrote:
...
1) If there is no I-D and no mailing list, then no, you can not have a room
suitable for 50+ people.
...
+10**10
If there is no ID and no mailing list at least several weeks in advance, you
should either have a
Assuming the very simple model that attendance consists of a fixed number of
constant attendees from each continent plus a continentally local variable
number that only show up when the IETF meets on their continent and using
the very limited data provided, using a rough least squares fit I get
1) I'm also in favor of Canadian venues for North American meetings.
2) On long term contracts, you can get some saving, but you have to be
careful. I have some experience with holding a convention in the same city
every year for decades. If you stick with the same facility year after year,
you
It depends what you want to do. Technical participation in a working
group by email works pretty well. But if you want to talk in person to
WG chairs of ADs or the IANA or RFC Editor staff or be eligible for
NomCom or have more impact at BoFs, etc., being there is important.
See also RFC 4144.
Hi Phil,
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not the IAB zone is signed is of negligible consequence.
But the fact that the IAB zone signatures had expired is a highly
significant data point: DNSSEC administration is not quite as easy as
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and
solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island.
Because it's the nicest,
If there is something in the IESG write-up that is needed to
understand the nature of a document, that material should also appear
in the document. Most people looking at RFCs probably don't even know
that an IESG write-up might exist or where to find it and even those
who do know about the IESG
These are unemployed engineers, right?
Donald
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Lucy Lynch lly...@civil-tongue.net wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Paul Hoffman wrote:
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2731
Those of you with a good collection of old IETF t-shirts (and other
schwag; did anyone
I have reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
This Standards Track draft specifies a multicast
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail dot com wrote:
...
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to (in alphabetical order): Tony Hansen, Thomson Martin
and Barry Leiba for their weighty input to this document.
This doesn't
My apologies for responding slowly, I was traveling.
If it is tolerable to people, I do not mind adding the two sentences
requested by Sam to the isis-trill draft.
Thanks,
Donald
PS: It appears to me that the same considerations apply to
draft-ietf-isis-ieee-aq.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:45
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Radia == Radia Perlman radiaperl...@gmail.com writes:
Radia No objections. Radia
Can I get someone to confirm that the text in the proposed sentences is
substantially true?
I think so but I'm not an IS-IS
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 20/12/2010 18:43, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Sam Hartmanhartmans-i...@mit.edu
wrote:
Radia == Radia Perlmanradiaperl...@gmail.com writes:
Radia No objections. Radia
I have also seen attempts to make a standard Historic with the
supposed reason being to clear things out for the introduction of
some better replacement. That seems like just nonsense to me. If it is
so obvious that a replacement is superior, the replacement document
can do the move of earlier
Almost all registries I'm familiar with explicitly list unassigned
ranges. In some cases, different unassigned subranges have different
allocation policies. For example, there may be a small unassigned
range of lower values requiring Standards Action with the bulk of the
unassigned values
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:20 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hello,
This is the second time in a year that I came across a case where a non-IETF
group sought to maintain change control over a draft. In the first case,
several iterations of the draft were posted and the author solicited
I had the impression that it was the International Earth Rotation
Service (www.iers.org), also headquartered in Paris, that was in
charge of leap seconds, as stated here
http://www.iers.org/nn_11252/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/bulC__MD.html
Thanks,
Donald
I think this draft may do a little good, but mostly based on the
attention it brings to the issue.
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed
Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real
steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit*
For all those people just dying to know about this character (U+19DA),
the latest Unicode code chart listing it is here
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1980.pdf
and the name of the character is NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Christian Hoene ho...@uni-tuebingen.de wrote:
Hello,
In this draft, the editors of draft are not named as editors but as authors.
Thus, I would suggest to follow the example given in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5620.txt and add an , Ed. behind the
names.
An IETF consensus call is judgement as to rough consensus. There is no
mechanical set of rules that can substitute for judgement.
WG Chairs judge the consensus of the Working Group. It is reasonable
for them to take into account discussions at WG meetings as well as WG
mailing list discussions.
Hi Melinda,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/24/2011 06:46 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
If polls at area meetings with 100+ people at them at three successive
IETF meetings on different continents consistently show, say, a 3 to 1
preference
Hi Martin,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Donald Eastlake wrote:
If polls at area meetings with 100+ people at them at three successive
IETF meetings on different continents consistently show, say, a 3 to 1
preference for some proposal but the IETF Last call
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:14 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Obviously we need to take a typical step back first and determine the
scope of the problem. We need to commission a requirements for noise
ID first.
Can we schedule a BOF? Perhaps a symbolic burning of notices?
Why can't we get informative explanations of what problem non-WG
mailing lists are trying to address?
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:54 PM, IETF
Most hotel contracts I've signed have a clause called Attrition
which calls for payment if the rooms actually taken fall below some
percentage of the room block, like below 90% or the like.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Geoff Mulligan geoff.i...@mulligan.com wrote:
...
You could pick Rosemont, IL (next to O'hare) for every meeting (oops,
sorry - misses on decent food).
Minneapolis or Chicago, one place doesn't make it. The policy of the
IETF has been to meet where the
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:39 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: https
Hi Tom,
At 00:18 26-08-2011, t.petch wrote:
Besides all the usual hassle
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Henk Uijterwaal
henk.uijterw...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Discussions with the hotel starts only 2 years out, so fixing dates 3 years
out won't change a thing. There is also the clash list, which limits the
weeks when we can have a meeting.
If we want more
I do not believe there is any need to change RFC 2119.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner s...@harvard.edu wrote:
I've been
I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad
idea that would create many cesspools of controversy.
Donald
On 9/19/11, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the
2/3rds of the IETF meetings in the USA would exacerbate visa problems
for many attendees. I don't mind some amount of regularity in meeting
site, like Minneapolis, or going where it's inexpensive (by the way,
the Boston area is really cheap in the winter) but I think you need
more variety than
Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back
to 4 meetings a year than going to 2...
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:38
+1
Donald
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
I support this concept, although I would go much further and
eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings.
I absolutely wouldn't.
Travel (for meetings) is
I worked at the MIT AI Lab for a number of years and visited SAIL several times.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Steve Crocker
draft-ietf-savi-framework-05.txt
This document is a high level framework for SAVI and references a
number of other documents. As such, I think, that the Security
Considerations section is probably of adequate depth. However, there
are a number of wording problems, both clarity and grammar, that I
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:38 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 10:50 28-11-2011, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a
That's very interesting. I've produced a number of RFCs over the years
that reference US-ASCII and, since I had no idea that RFC 20 existed
(it wasn't even on line when I started), I've always used the
following reference. No one ever pointed out RFC 20 to me...
ANSI, USA Standard Code for
The end of year Holiday season is not generally known as a time when
lots of work gets done.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, t.petch
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Andy Bierman a...@netconfcentral.org wrote:
On 01/03/2012 08:52 AM, George, Wes wrote:
Happy New Year, it's time for our triannual hotel complaint thread.
I hate to do it, but I think that there are people who haven't looked at
this yet, and I'm hoping that we
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 10:23 23-01-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification'
draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt as
I also support this draft.
Donald
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Daryl Tanner daryl.tan...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
I support this updated draft, and I am keen for this to be published as a
BCP.
I believe the amendments in this revision clarify the usage and intended
purpose of the shared
Hey, if people don't like the restrictions of the TXT RR, have I got
an answer for you!
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsind-kitchen-sink-02
A little out of data but gives you a wide variety of formats :-)
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your review. See responses below.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please
Hi Ben,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
Thanks for the quick response. Further comments inline. I deleted sections
that do not appear to need further discussion.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 1, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks
How about RFC 1661.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
All protocols in IETF
Sees reasonable. While you are at it, you might complete the I* with IANA...
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Barry Leiba
(1) Your figures show that it is more likely that a noncom member will
be selected from an affiliation listed by only one volunteer then that
they are to be selected from any specific affiliation listed by more
than one volunteer.
(2) Because of appearances of biased voting membership in some
One problem with excessively large fields, including variable length
addresses with a high maximum length, is that the next time someone
wants to encode some additional information, they just tuck it inside
that field in some quasi-proprietary way, instead of going to the
trouble of actually
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
I have one discussion point and a number of small nits...
...
There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue:
15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor
may
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
i say scott should teach emacs :)
Epsilon, dude! Who the heck wants to write their editor extensions in freaking
LISP? :-)
http://xkcd.com/297/
Thanks,
Donald
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, October 29, 2012 14:06 +0100 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
Bob, everyone,
As I've mentioned, I'd prefer an alternative to what the
authors have written. Call this the let's program ourselves
out of
Right. See RFC 4144.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Mary Barnes
mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM,
I generally agree with Joe. There should be discussion but the
distribution of that discussion between meeting and mailing list is
not significant; however, there must be sufficient opportunity for
objection or additional comments on the mailing list and, in the case
of discussion at a meeting,
It's a question of costs and benefits. The cost of the IETF Announce
posting is small. There are not that many of them and I don't find
them to be a burden. The benefit in openness and transparency is
large. Thus the answer is simple and the policy should remain as it is
for now. If conditions
Hi Gayle,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM, gayle noble wind...@skyhighway.com wrote:
Very well written!! No spelling errors! No grammatical errors! Only one
sentence, in my opinion, could be rephrased for clarity
4.1. Data Plane
RBridges MUST have the ability to identify OAM frames destined
How about changing the title from Special-Purpose Address Registries
to Special-Purpose IP Address Registries.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:55
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Quick, name five reasons to go to Orlando. Here are mine:
Dave Puerto Rican
Dave delicacies, alternative cinema, craft beer, African-American
Another problem is maintenance. Protocols change. Having to maintain a
formal specification is commonly at least an order of magnitude more
effort than maintaining a prose description. So it doesn't happen and
they very rapidly get out of synch in any living protocol. As an
example, the IEEE
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
