Hi Dave,
I agree with you about the counter-marketing text that will only turn
off potential implementers.
However I think this would be more appropriate as Experimental. Yes, we
give PS to specs that may not ever be implemented. But at least working
groups are (usually) good at avoiding
On Aug 10, 2013, at 08:46, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
If we foresee multiple solutions being published for this problem space,
which is what I'm hearing, then Experimental is the better choice.
By that argument, TCP and UDP should be Experimental, too -- they are both in
the
On 08/10/2013 03:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/9/2013 6:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So some kind of statement that CBOR is one point in a design
space (as opposed to an optimal solution for some set of
design objectives) would be worthwhile.
huh?
That's fair. My suggestion above
Howdy,
You asked for community input, so I'll pipe up from the peanut gallery.
I happen to be looking for a JSON-ish on-the-wire encoding with binary support,
and I actually like what I see in CBOR. (I'll probably end up using
MessagePack anyway though... popularity has a quality all its own)
On 08/09/2013 09:39 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Would being able to reliably know exactly who said everything that was said in a WG
meeting visibly improve the quality of our standards? If the answer is not a clear
yes (and
On Aug 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
I'm not saying that will happen in this case at all, but we shouldn't kid
ourselves that it doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, people wouldn't care
about labeling their IDs Informational or Experimental. People
On Friday, August 09, 2013 09:39:12 Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Would being able to reliably know exactly who said everything that was
said in a WG meeting visibly improve the quality of our standards? If
the answer is not a
On 8/10/2013 12:07 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 08:46, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
If we foresee multiple solutions being published for this problem space, which
is what I'm hearing, then Experimental is the better choice.
By that argument, TCP and UDP
On Aug 10, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
Unless you're checking identification provided by sources all agree are
trustworthy, you've done nothing of the sort. You may be able to attach an
unverified identifier to a group of statements, but there's still no
On Aug 10, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Most of this thread has ignored the IETF's own rules and criteria. As such,
it's wasteful, at best, though I think it's actually destructive, since it
provides fuel to the view that the IETF is a questionable venue for
On Aug 10, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
The reason we call things proposed standard is because we expect
interoperability. A thing that can't have or affect interoperability
probably isn't a proposed standard. In this case, what we have is
definitely a
--On Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:14 -0400 Ted Lemon
ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
wrote:
Most of this thread has ignored the IETF's own rules and
criteria. As such, it's wasteful, at best, though I think
it's actually
On Aug 10, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
I'm not sure if you intended to, but you're implying non-standards-track docs
are only for things we don't expect interoperability for, or cannot have or
affect interoperability. I've read RFC 2026, and afaict
On Aug 10, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
Section 1.1 goes on at some length about the intended use for the document
is. If you believe it is unclear or incomplete, some pointed questions
about it would be entirely appropriate.
To expand on this slightly, the
On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
But, if the IESG feels an encoding mechanism doesn't need any targeted
use-case to be published as a PS, then please ignore my email for purposes of
consensus. I'm not strongly for/against - just answering
On 8/10/13 5:00 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
One of the reasons we find groups choosing to avoid the IETF's
standards process is its unpredictability.
Our processes must be stable, but people have different reasons for
articulating concern. 2026 is not meant to be the singular criteria.
In fact
On 8/10/2013 1:43 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead protocol?
Specifically, if I implement a new
On 10/08/13 21:29, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 8/10/2013 1:43 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone have any idea how widely is TCPMUX (RFC 1078) protocol used?
Is it the case that there are inetd daemons in TCPMUX mode running
everywhere, or can it be rather considered a dead protocol?
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com
wrote:
I'm not saying that will happen in this case at all, but we shouldn't
kid ourselves that it doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, people
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com
wrote:
But, if the IESG feels an encoding mechanism doesn't need any targeted
use-case to be published as a PS, then please ignore my email for
On Aug 10, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.commailto:hal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Yoav Nir
y...@checkpoint.commailto:y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan
On Aug 10, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com
wrote:
That's fair, and I should have been clearer. I think 'Informatonal' is more
appropriate for now, because I don't think we know what the it is
BCP 70 Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within
IETF Protocols
attempted to outline some of the design considerations for data representation
using XML.
In 2003, it represented the consensus and also the disagreements about what
was best current practice at the time.
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.
Document:
I wrote a brief summary of the meeting and what was important from my
perspective. Here's the article:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/08/meeting-summary/
Thank you all for a very productive meeting!
For your information, we also had some media interested in the meeting, e.g.,
radio programs
I wrote a brief summary of the meeting and what was important from my
perspective. Here's the article:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/08/meeting-summary/
Thank you all for a very productive meeting!
For your information, we also had some media interested in the meeting, e.g.,
radio programs
26 matches
Mail list logo
