Re: Email account utilization warning.
Dean, On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:55:07PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > > > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html > > Yes, I've read this carefully. Did you really ? If you did, you would have found a mail address of Rob Austein that you can use to send him mail. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Email account utilization warning.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, David Kessens wrote: > > Dean, > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:19:20AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > > > > P.S. I am still blocked from emailing DNS WG chair, and prevented from > > registering complaint about improper DNS WG RFC process activity by ISC > > and DNS WG chair Austein, because the IETF chairman Alvestrand demands > > that such complaints be made offlist, yet chairman Alvestrand refuses to > > require the WG Chairs to accept email from participants. > > Can you please keep the facts straight: > > - there is no such thing as the DNS WG > do you mean the dnsop working group by any chance ? Yes. That is correct. > - the dnsop working group has two chairpeople, not just Rob Austein At present. > - you are not blocked by Rob Austein or prevented from registering a > complaint. I have posted the blocked messages in the past. Are you asserting that something has changed? I am not aware of any change. Indeed, Chairmain Alvestrand has clearly stated that he has not requested any change. > it has been pointed out to you that you have the ability to > communicate with Rob Austein using the mail address that is posted > on the ietf dnsop charter web page: As Chairman Alvestrand has clearly stated, IETF email lists are not to be used for making complaints. One is not supposed to make complaints to the DNSOP list. The only exception to this rule is the main IETF list which has administrative discussion as its purpose. > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html Yes, I've read this carefully. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Autoreply: Ietf Digest, Vol 3, Issue 16
I'm out of the office on Monday and Tuesday (13th-14th) so please send enquires to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contributors contact David Molony or Ian Kemp ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies
At 10:42 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
James M. Polk wrote:
I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to
catch this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is
time to address it now.
Given that both need to define different tags (XML element names in one
case, numeric tags in the other), I think such reference would be difficult,
but they both have a way too similar chart that doesn't match -
implementors down the road might not see the subtle differences and we end
up with another Mars Probe crashing into the planet because one set of
engineers used km and the other used miles and both groups were happy until
there were flames and smoke
Not being consistent MUST lead to ignoring of fields in the IETF... this is
not good unless (see below)
even leaving timing issues aside. I think we can handle the
synchronization of the documents
this means the civil doc needs to change to exactly what the pidf-lo doc
has (as the synchronization is up to the most mobile doc - and that's the
civil doc near WGLC, but far from IETF LC)
- the list of elements is small.
agreed they are in the details side of addressing, but if someone sending a
message was coded to the civil doc and includes BLDG, and the recipient's
device was coded to the pidf-lo doc without such a reference, the BLDG
value must be ignored by the recipient.
Maybe this is the lone identifier on the Columbia Univ campus ("The Law
School"). Leaving everything else consistent, a responder is going to go to
a campus address and have the floor and room number, but not which building
the caller was in. That might mean less lawyers that year...
This I think presents a problem.
Henning
cheers,
James
***
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Geopriv] Comments on draft-ietf-pidf-lo
At 10:06 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: Based on suggestions by Brian Rosen, I'd like to propose three additional civic location elements for this document: - BLDG (building), e.g., "Empire State Building" I think "LMK" covers this (which is already defined), and is different than the occupant the building (which would be "NAM" I believe). - UNIT (unit), e.g, "APT 42" or "SUITE 123" - ROOM (room number), e.g., "1234" I know you gave only one example per, but room numbers have other characters in them frequently, like "63-1N" (which is my office designation, so I didn't make it up) Otherwise, these last two seem reasonable Henning ___ Geopriv mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv cheers, James *** Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies
At 10:13 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: James M. Polk wrote: In reviewing the pidf-lo-02 and the civil-02 IDs, I have discovered minor inconsistencies. Please note that the labels in the column 'NENA' refer to the NENA 02-010 data element labels. Neither FLR or PC are used there, as far as I can tell. FLR is not defined there at all and PC is called ZIP. h - inconsistencies should be avoided if known (therefore - see below) I've added a separate column to the civil-02 table, labeled PIDF, to make the correspondence explicit. this is good for the civil ID, but doesn't address what the pidf-lo ID is stating (which you shouldn't be solving) I believe the two charts should be consistent to each other, with the civil-02 ID being the one that's less complete, it should have the appropriate text added. They definitely should be. A separate, but related issue, is whether the language information contained in the civil-02 draft should also appear in PIDF-LO. I agree it is related. Perhaps the pidf-lo document should only reference the civil doc for the chart? In other words, have the civil ID be the creator of the chart, and not have it in both documents (fearing inconsistency), but have the pidf-lo document reference *to* the chart in the civil doc. I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to catch this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is time to address it now. cheers, James *** Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented cheers, James *** Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Geopriv] Comments on draft-ietf-pidf-lo
James M. Polk wrote:
I think "LMK" covers this (which is already defined), and is different
than the occupant the building (which would be "NAM" I believe).
In many cases, yes. In other cases, LMK would be a larger complex ("The
Mews"), comprising more than one building.
- UNIT (unit), e.g, "APT 42" or "SUITE 123"
- ROOM (room number), e.g., "1234"
I know you gave only one example per, but room numbers have other
characters in them frequently, like "63-1N" (which is my office
designation, so I didn't make it up)
Otherwise, these last two seem reasonable
Both are strings.
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies
James M. Polk wrote: I agree it is related. Perhaps the pidf-lo document should only reference the civil doc for the chart? In other words, have the civil ID be the creator of the chart, and not have it in both documents (fearing inconsistency), but have the pidf-lo document reference *to* the chart in the civil doc. I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to catch this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is time to address it now. Given that both need to define different tags (XML element names in one case, numeric tags in the other), I think such reference would be difficult, even leaving timing issues aside. I think we can handle the synchronization of the documents - the list of elements is small. Henning ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Comments on draft-ietf-pidf-lo
Based on suggestions by Brian Rosen, I'd like to propose three additional civic location elements for this document: - BLDG (building), e.g., "Empire State Building" - UNIT (unit), e.g, "APT 42" or "SUITE 123" - ROOM (room number), e.g., "1234" Henning ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
