At 02:00 PM 4/8/2001, James P. Salsman wrote:
>I tried private emails and phone calls,
>prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer
>list of requested solutions which still seem like entirely constructive
>critisism to me.
This appears to be the core of the problem.
--On Monday, April 09, 2001 10:11 AM +0700 "Rahmat M.
Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That was the odd one out, but I'm getting 404 Not found for
>> other recently-announced drafts. Perhaps uploading before
>> announcing would be good.
>
> Simple Question:
>
>What should I do
> Please help me understand your reasoning:
> > We participate in the IETF as individuals, not as corporate represenatives.
> > As such, asking about [company] product plans on the WG mailing is
> > completely and totally inappropriate.
> Are you really trying to discourage asking questions of s
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:17:02 EDT, John Day said:
> I do not know about other countries, but I do know that the US
> government has taken action against companies for announcing products
> and then deciding later to not offer those products. Hence, most
> people do not talk about possible futur
Lloyd Wood wrote:
> That was the odd one out, but I'm getting 404 Not found for other
> recently-announced drafts. Perhaps uploading before announcing would
> be good.
Simple Question:
What should I do if I could not find a internet draft that
was announced as an I-D action in IETF-Anno
At 14:00 -0700 4/8/01, James P. Salsman wrote:
>Patrik,
>
>If you or Ned are not already aware from the context of my disputed
>question and my previous posts, I tried private emails and phone calls,
>prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer
>list of requested solu
Patrik,
If you or Ned are not already aware from the context of my disputed
question and my previous posts, I tried private emails and phone calls,
prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer
list of requested solutions which still seem like entirely constructive
> I think we need to have a clear discussion
> about which kinds of NDAs are compatible with IESG duty.
see RCC 2026 section 10.2 -
the simple answer is "none"
Scott
--On 01-04-08 03.08 -0700 "James P. Salsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but
> their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20. If Robin Doe
> works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of
> the ch
Ned,
Please help me understand your reasoning:
> We participate in the IETF as individuals, not as corporate represenatives.
> As such, asking about [company] product plans on the WG mailing is
> completely and totally inappropriate.
Are you really trying to discourage asking questions of self
10 matches
Mail list logo
