Some people have asked about the ITU-D. The -D stands for
"Development", but it could also stand for "Discuss". This is the arm
of the ITU that does capacity building and outreach of various sorts.
There are four programs in D, including one that focuses on operational
aspects and another on tra
> How many cookies does nanog.org require for you to allow to look
> at their site? Seems to me it operates very well without them.
>
> Job well done NANOG! :-)
indeed. i hold the nanog site up as an example in many ways, really
functional without cookies, javascript, ...
if memory serves,
On 1/12/13 10:49 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ... serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down ...
Bill,
I don't accept the premise that (a) the settlement free peering model
as modernly practiced can not also be characterized as problematic,
and that (b) the intents (note the p
Even if there were no ITU we'd have to invent one, to paraphrase
Voltaire's quip about God.
There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee
international settlements and other, similar, regulations.
And it would probably end up being about the same because who'd be
involved but abo
--- sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
From: Scott Howard
That seems to be a perfectly acceptable use of cookies for me,
and is something that could not reliably be done any other way.
How many cookies does nanog.org require for you to allow to look
at their site? See
On 1/13/13, John R. Levine wrote:
> If I were trying to think of a way to totally destroy the effectiveness of
> the IETF, loading it up with millions of dollars that come with political
> strings attached would be about the best one I could imagine. Congrats.
Yes, please redirect from ITU-T t
On 1/12/2013 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work.
-R is excluded from the petition. (From a number of postings, it appears
that many folk haven't noticed that.)
I don't know anything about -D.
In the interest of adding some core information to the thre
On 1/13/13 12:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Matthew Petach wrote:
Thank goodness ethernet never has problems with negotiation going
awry, and coming up with mismatched duplexes, and vendors never had
to implement "no negotiation-auto" in their configs because you
could
On Jan 13, 2013, at 7:54 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> Since it is possible to fund -by sector-, there is no good reason to tar the
> entire Union with the same brush.
Bill, please read the petition before attempting to comment on it.
Again, the petition specifically excludes ITU-R
and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved.
Trivial to whom? Is $11M/year trivial relative to the $181M/year ITU
budget? Relative to the $2M/year IETF budget? Relative to the
$600K/year budget of NANOG?
Trivial to the US government, who's appropriating the mon
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:59PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote:
> > ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work.
>
> Care to try to cite an example? R we can't pull out of because NRO needs its
> slots. I'm not sure that constitutes "good w
On 1/12/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, "John Levine" wrote:
The political fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its
wallet
and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved.
Relative to the $2M/year IETF budget?
On 13/01/2013 07:42, Matthew Petach wrote:
> PS--while we're at it, can I have a pony?
The day that we see good quality trouble-free OOB on all networking kit
that everyone is happy about will be the day that vendors shower us with
ponies for all. I'm quite sure of it.
Nick
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Or "ask me every time". Sites should not require cookies
> just to look around. I get it if there's a transaction to
> be made, but just to look? :-( Especially a site like RIPE!
>
Umm.. Before deciding what sites should or shouldn't be
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Matthew Petach wrote:
Thank goodness ethernet never has problems with negotiation going awry,
and coming up with mismatched duplexes, and vendors never had to
implement "no negotiation-auto" in their configs because you couldn't
count on everyone's implementations working
15 matches
Mail list logo
