> On 08/05/2013 08:33, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
> >> ...
> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
> sub
Hi -
> From: "Brian E Carpenter"
> To: "Ned Freed"
> Cc: "John C Klensin" ; ;
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Language editing
...
> You are correct if only considering the mail standards. I suspect
> that a serious attempt at formal verification would have thrown
> up a
On 08/05/2013 08:33, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
>> ...
I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
out, we deployed something with a restriction that
subsequently turn
On 5/2/13 4:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 3:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> But the delay was really not my main concern. Primarily because I
>> think other issues such as transparency to the working group or late
>> surprises are more fundamental issues than mere timing. But also
>> because
> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
> >> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
> >> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
> >> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
> >> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're
On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
...
>> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
>> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
>> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
>> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're stuck
>> wit
--On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:08 -0700 Ned Freed
wrote:
>> Maybe things have changed, but, if one actually believes the
>> robustness principle, then, in the case Geoff cites, Exchange
>> is simply non-conforming -- not because the spec prohibits
>> rejecting on the basis of a fine distinction
> Maybe things have changed, but, if one actually believes the
> robustness principle, then, in the case Geoff cites, Exchange is
> simply non-conforming -- not because the spec prohibits
> rejecting on the basis of a fine distinction about IPv6 formats,
> but because doing so is unnecessary, incon
On 5/7/13 12:07 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
as Best Current Practice
Sponsoring AD here,
Getting feedback on
Hi Samuel,
the authors of this draft have reviewed it in order to address your
comments:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-18
Could you please have a look at this revision and let them know whether
you are happy with it?
Thanks,
Gonzalo
On 04/02/2013 9:08 PM, Samuel Weiler
On May 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, SM wrote:
> At 13:23 06-05-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I don't that is quite right. The problem in this case is not to do
>> with linguistic quality. It's due to a lack of formal verification
>
> Quoting from the detective story:
>
> "At [censored] we have ch
11 matches
Mail list logo