IPv6 Subsets?
Ok, Ok, I probably haven't been paying attention, but... If a device implements a subset of IPv6, (e.g., no IPsec, no mobile IP), is it generally understood that this device "implements IPv6"? Has a standard subset of IPv6 been defined for very low-end devices that simply can't implement a full IPv6? As far as I can tell, we are at least informally moving towards IPv6-over-some-oddball-medium solutions that only implement a subset of IPv6, but it is not clear to me that they are always the same subset. It is also not clear to me whether this matters much. -tjs ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave Clark on Mars
Can anyone point me towards a reference of Dave Clark [allegedly] saying "don't do anything in a protocol that you wouldn't do to Mars"? (Never mind that TCP isn't likely to actually be used to Mars...) Thanks, -tjs
Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned
> To: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned > > At 5:11 PM -0500 1/6/02, Gordon Cook wrote: > >I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list. It returned > >THREE to me. If everyone else got 3, my apologies. If anyone can > >inform me as to what happened i'd appreciate it. > > Er, a better question is why you spammed the IETF list at all. Oh, please. Compared to what? Megabytes of viruses? Long discussions about whether viruses should be filtered from the IETF mail list? Long discussions about whether IETF mail lists should accept e-mail only from subscribers? Repeated tirades against address translation? While Gordon is regularly fairly confused, he sometimes does provide a few interesting tidbits in his infrequent postings. The information content of his postings probably ranks at least average for IETF postings (I am sorry to say). It seems to me that Gordon's postings are the least of the challenges faced by the IETF mail list. -tjs
Re: historical NIC activities report
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:24:19 -0600 > From: Chip Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: historical NIC activities report > > My enfeebled brain vaguely recalls at one time there were periodic > reports (quarterly?) posted here that summarized Internet activity, > including domain processing operations by the NIC. > [...] You might be thinking of the Internet Monthly Report, which is archived at: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/ -tjs (I know there was something to be said for never throwing anything away...)
Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
> From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu) > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:30:30 -0700 > [...] > (BTW, if you want to reproduce the Minneapolis-in-winter > experience in Europe, I highly recommend Brighton in February.) > [...] Just for the record, the IETF has never met in Minnesota in winter. Apparently, even highly evolved (or adapted, or something) Southern Californians without jackets managed to survive a week at the Minnesota (not in winter) IETF, something that wouldn't necessarily be true during a real Minnesota winter. (Actually, this aspect of the climate is generally regarded as a "feature"; something about "Keeps the riff-raff out", or something like that.) Of course, it's trying to snow today. Never mind... -tjs
RE: rfc publication suggestions
> From: "Rosen, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: rfc publication suggestions > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:57:03 -0500 > > Just as a practical matter from recent experience. > > Usually, an RFC originates as an IESG approved I-D. > Usually, you don't submit nroff for an I-D. > The RFC editor never asks if you have nroff > The RFC editor sometimes forgets when you offer it. > So, even if you have nroff source, you may have to work >to get it to the right folks at the right time. Perhaps, the perils of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract? (Note that I haven't seen the RFC Editor contract, nor have I checked to see if it is public.) > Of course a big problem is the decreasing number of > IETF people who know nroff, and even fewer that are fluent, > and even fewer who would, if they had a choice, choose it. Back when SRI was running the NIC (registering domain names, for those not familiar with ancient history) I understand that they were running stuff on some big, ancient (even at the time) DEC system (DEC-10 or DEC-20 -- I forget because I'm not a DEC guy). Network Solutions apparently underbid SRI's (presumably cost-plus-fixed-fee) proposal and converted all the processes to some Unix platform, (Solaris, I think). So, maybe, just maybe, the use of nroff is an artifact of un-competed cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, rather than any sort of intellectual sclerosis of the IETF. Or, we could go back to talking about NATs. Never mind... -tjs
Re: IETF logistics
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IETF logistics > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:49:47 -0500 > > > What we can do for future IETFs is make the current > > sporadic practice of reserving the front few rows of seats for > > folks who have actually read the drafts and are involved in > > implementation. > > why don't we reserve all *except* the last three rows for those > who have read the drafts, leaving the last three rows for bottom > feeders? What happened to the proven and time-honored technique of getting to a meeting early if you want a seat? I know the argument is that we want to hang out in the hallways until the last minute and still get a seat (because we are more "important" than a bunch of the people that did get there early), but still... -tjs
