Tim Bray wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Step-by-step instructions (with illustrations) for Americans to use their
credit cards overseas.
Anyhow, it has to be an iPad app, rather than iPhone/iPod-touch,
because the smaller devices can't display 80-char-
Yeah - but who wants to go to Minneapolis one more time
/duck&cover
Bill
Dave Crocker wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
well, it's gotta be the IAOC's fault then. Tell you what, you can cut
my IAOC salary in half as a penalty.
Nah. You deserve every penny you get. In fact, let's double your
salar
Be careful offering legal advise. I believe what you are proposing is a
state issue. For example in Oregon we ONLY have mail in ballots. Other
states will have varying degrees of absentee balloting - each with their
own fun interpretations.
Bill
Moskovitz, Ram Austryjak wrote:
You can choo
I don't know about the rest of you - but my sponsor tells me to
participate and gives me the right to abide by the Note Well.
This is a simple thing for most sponsors to do - so this whole analysis
is based on a participant that is working without their sponsors knowledge.
Now I am officially
You think that is bad - try going by your legal Middle Name.
Do you know how many systems require a first name and a middle
initial... Instead of the other way around
F. William "Bill" Strahm
Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
Hear! Hear!
I also suffer the indignity of having the
Robert Elz wrote:
I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone,
can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in
the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the problem
is easy, what possible justification can there be for not a
I saw all of the huff, and while I agree with it, I am more concerned about
Appendix A. IPR Disclosure
TBD
What does that mean, and more specifically is a document with a TBD
section really ready for last call at all ?
Bill
Russ Housley wrote:
I misunderstood the original question. I'll
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 15:23 -0700 Bob Braden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*> harmful, and that the best way to insure coverage of IANA
issues is to have an *> explicit check for such things as
part of our review process.
Ned,
As I expect you know,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe,
There is an agenda cutoff that WG chairs are supposed
to respect. This time it was:
> The agenda for the Working Group is due by Monday,
> February 28 at 12:00 ET (17:00 GMT).
But there were many late agendas and there was a glitch
in the process of posting them.
Guilt
I don't know how airline pricing works in .au - but here in the .us it
seems that adding a short flight into a more regional airport can more
than double the cost of an airplane ticket.
Also note that a town of 100,000 will seldom have conference space that
can host a conference that attracts 1500
Hmmm,
I am wondering if running this e-mail thread is adding a couple years worth of 6byte
additions to the subject.
Seems silly to me - I prefer lists to do this - makes many peoples life easier -
doesn't make anyones life harder (and frankly if 6 bytes is going to blow your
bandwidth budget
Very nice. I say to post an Internet Draft - you post a link to a simple
archived e-mail. The IETF process starts with an Internet Draft - without it
we are all just wasting time. An internet draft is a concrete proposal that
can be discussed, archived, debated successfully, etc.
I challenge y
Why is this even difficult. I have yet to see a firm proposal (ie. an
Internet Draft), and once there is one, it is a simple matter of asking an AD
to sponsor a BOF to see if there is interest in forming a working group to
solve the problem. I remember sitting through several YATP (Yet another
T
I'll give you one good reason. And that is updating the drafts once
the initial RFC is published. If the origional XML/.doc/input language of the
day is available, then I don't have to spend my time converting the text
into a usable form to get the formating done easily.
For this reason only, h
The problem that you have with TCP (and made worse by SSH tunneling on top of
it) is that the number of round trips needed to successfully get a data packet
through is unreasonably high in a situation where you are attempting to
diagnose a network fault.
The other choice is to leave a LOT of stat
Ok, I have to ask a silly question (not like that would be a first on this list)
Why, oh WHY would I want to receive a known corrupted packet ?
Are we talking about someone thinks they can eeke out 1% more performance
because their phy/mac can cut over immediately rather than wait for the packet
I am always leary about business models that I don't understand how they
make money. So tell me, how will mail-archive.com make money to guarantee
that it will be around in 2050, 2100, and beyond.
I am not all that interested in a mail archive that might exist for a few
months, or a year, frankly
I tend to disagree with you Ross,
First it is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs. Second
I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong conferences that want in
the order of 1000-1700 registration fees...
I can see how this is VERY different betwee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of D.
J. Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dan Bernstein's issues about namedroppers list operation
Thomas Narten wr
Well just one person will not be able to create rough concensus, except
in a VERY small group. Saying that someone MUST be wanting to produce
an inferior document because they were paid to create a product based on
the spec is not fair to any participants. I claim that MANY, if not
MOST IETF part
IETF, this
isn't the government, we NEED this to work
Bill Strahm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer
Cc: D. J. Bernstein; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTE
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
2) What would happen to any "new" IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
the area is shut down ?
In otherwords, does the IESG think that a two new members would help
Silly question,
But you DO know what it will take to get your message to be immediately
seen by the list, you just aren't willing to do it...
I believe the problem is in your court, easily solved and it is not time
to move on to something that might be slightly productive
Bill
-Original Me
I don't know about others, but I use the IETF mailing list service to
manage the list. If you want to send a message all it takes is a
subscribe, but please don't send me any e-mails... Very easy to do with
a Webpage...
This only guarantees that I won't see your mail and possibly make a
mistake,
Ok... I have to know...
Randy,
Can you please put [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the approved posters list for
namedroppers ?
Isn't it as simple as that ?
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 10:18 A
Keith,
I almost agree with you... Except here is the problem...
The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has 17 request(s) waiting for your
consideration at:
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/admindb/ipoverib
I'll go ahead and remove the 17 messages trying to sell sex, toner
cartridges, stuff in c
Well the first thing you have to realize is that there is no such thing
as TCP/MS, and there for any answer you get would be highly speculative
at best.
This is a huge red herring, based on speculation that for some unknown
reason, Microsoft will Embrace/Extend/Extinguish the IP protocol and
succe
I always figured it was based on the number of managers that you have on
the project, one manager for each layer... At least that is how it was
done at a previous company I worked for...
Models are very nice to help you get people to think about something the
same way. Of course the best eng
All I have to say is "WOW" A three page executive summary. I am afraid
to read the rest... Guess I will have to see what is going on especially
when they start talking about ICANN (At the VERY bottom) I'd love to
know how that fits into Peering and Transit economics
Bill
-Original Message-
I don't see why this is embarrasing. I have no problems with people
setting up filtering rules that say DENY-ALL accept packets that I
EXPLICITLY know what every bit does, and I want to allow it...
That said, ECN is a relatively recent addition to the suite and I
wouldn't expect all firewalling
Can't say about other maillist software, but the software that runs the
@ietf.org lists allows this, you can subscribe from as many addresses as
you want, and only get mail sent to a single address...
This works well for people that can't control what their company does as
far as @foo.company.com
I'll go a little farther...
Common configurations for modems leave the speaker on during
handshaking, but turn it off during normal data traffic...
When I was doing a lot of modem programming I remember there were ATA
commands that would turn off the speaker, or leave it on all the time...
Reall
On Thu, 30 May 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote:
> > Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to
> > treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals. It
> > would be nice to be able to say that all other thi
Pretty much any of the large providers that only provide
10/8 addresses to their custommers...
I believe AOL for one does this and it wouldn't surprise me if
most of the large cable providers do something silly like this
at the low end (You can always pay more for a real IP address)
Bill
On Fri
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 03:31:05PM -0500, John Stracke wrote:
> >John Stracke wrote:
> >> And the authors do caution that their numbers are blind to the quality
> of
> >> the RFCs. Their point, though, is that looking at the easy metrics is
> >> better than not measuring anything at all;
> >
>
35 matches
Mail list logo
