Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
Champake/Sri Lanka
Assitant Director (Information & Documentation)
Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
276 Elvi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Telecom Regulato
ry Commission of Sri Lanka typed:
>>Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
>>such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
>>valuable knowledge members posses.
we do - we not only h
Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Telecom Regulato
> ry Commission of Sri Lanka typed:
>
> >>Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
> >>such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
> >>valuable knowledge membe
> Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions.
the last thing we need is more pro-Microsoft bias in this community.
Telecom Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
> such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
> valuable knowledge members posses.
I have a better idea. Put the meetings
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions.
>
> the last thing we need is more pro-Microsoft bias in this community.
Amen.
At 10/19/00 10:19 AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > The last thing I need is more political statements like that.
> > Stick to engineering here, please.
>
>the question is, what environment are we engineering for? one
>which is controlled by Microsoft or one which is platform-agnostic?
>
>when I
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions.
>
> the last thing we need is more pro-Microsoft bias in this community.
I hope that this sentiment won't distract us from what I hope are more
important objectives, one of which presumably is to effectively communicate
with
> Well, last I looked I didn't think that the IETF was "engineering" video
> conferencing application products here. I would suspect that we are users
> of developed products, and that we should pick the products, perhaps
> several, that benefit the largest community that we wish to reach.
>
> I
Tim Salo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> (Awaiting a modest proposal to outlaw PowerPoint at IETF meetings...)
>
What wrong with SliTeX anyway? Other than that the files are too
small compaired to PowerPoint?
(I swear, every time I see that blue fade to black background, I feel
my eyelids star
> I don't know whether NetMeeting is the right answer. But, I am pretty
> sure the question ought to be "How can we more effectively communicate
> our message?", not "How can we avoid using Microsoft products?"
agree entirely. but in my mind part of communicating effectively
is avoiding the us
[This query received zip response on [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I'll try here]
I recall that at one time there were various thoughts on the table about where
to take HTTP next (e.g. "HTTP next generation") -- i.e. there were various
BOFs held, I-Ds written, and so on.
Larry Masinter noted simply in
Is there anything in the IESG governing rules that requires any
physical presence at a particular location in order to accomplish
any IESG tasks?
I think the IETF took a wrong turn when the first PostScript RFC
was published, because that is sort of hard on those blind persons
who might want
At 03:54 PM 10/19/00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Are there any nascent post-HTTP-1.1 efforts *presently* lurking about that
>anyone cares to mention? Does anyone have a convenient
I know some folks are talking about blocks, though that could replace a lot
more than HTTP:
http://www.bxxp.org
> I know some folks are talking about blocks, though that could replace a
lot
> more than HTTP:
> http://www.bxxp.org
i don't think so. i think that http is as entrenched as ip & tcp, and is
nearly as irreplacable.
the problem, i think, a general lack of clarity as to what http is for.
i'd say
At 06:16 PM 10/19/00 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
>> I know some folks are talking about blocks, though that could replace a
>lot
>> more than HTTP:
>> http://www.bxxp.org
>
>i don't think so. i think that http is as entrenched as ip & tcp, and is
>nearly as irreplacable.
>
>the problem, i think, a
Mohsen,
Thanks for your pointer:
> All of this and a great deal more is discussed in various old books,
> such as:
>
> - Internetwork Mobility - The CDPD Approach
> Taylor, Waung and Banan
> Prentice Hall
> 1996
> ISBN: 0-13-209693-5
I can't find any store that seems to stock your book
> Is there anything in the IESG governing rules that requires any
> physical presence at a particular location in order to accomplish
> any IESG tasks?
I don't know of anything explicit in the rules, but as a practical matter
it is essential that IESG members be present at most IETF meetings.
Th
Ned,
Thanks for your message. One part is very interesting:
> there's no substitute for F2F meetings in order to accomplish some tasks.
I agree, but I would like to know which of the IESG tasks most require
face-to-face meetings. If they were listed, maybe some solutions would
be engineered
> > there's no substitute for F2F meetings in order to accomplish some tasks.
> I agree, but I would like to know which of the IESG tasks most require
> face-to-face meetings. If they were listed, maybe some solutions would
> be engineered so that more could be done between meetings.
I already
20 matches
Mail list logo