At 12:46 AM -0500 11/12/01, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Needless to say, the sight of IPv6 proponents ranting about how nobody has
ever come up with a fully specified way to do [ID/locator separation],
while the protocol they are defending contains, apparently unbeknown to
them, the perfect
The IETF list itself was split from one list to discussion and
announcements. I don't see why announcements can't be split to IDs
and all other announcements. People would still get ID announcements to
their WG lists of the particular ones they find pertinant and would still
see Last Calls to
My view is that accuracy requirements for timestamps are a matter for the
application. E.g. in an email archive, a timestamp that is accurate within
a few minutes may be OK, for an e-commerce transaction log I would hope for
sub-second accuracy. I don't think it is something this document can
At 18:35 13/11/01, April Marine wrote:
The IETF list itself was split from one list to discussion and
announcements. I don't see why announcements can't be split to IDs
and all other announcements. People would still get ID announcements to
their WG lists of the particular ones they find
Just some followups:
Re filters: As Paul already joked, I obviously do use an e-mail
client with filters. But of course the problem is that filters don't
stop the intial problem, which is an awful lot of traffic through my
poor little server. Even worse, when I am on the road and over a
At 4:02 PM -0600 11/13/01, Pete Resnick wrote:
I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce
list *except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft
announcements.
So, we split into two lists... IDs and other stuff.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Paul Hoffman / IMC
From: Steve Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is kind of a ways from my original point, which was simply griping about
this continued irritating claim that there's no fully worked out example of
separating location and identity, but what the heck...
Way back in June of 1992 on the
Pete == Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pete I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce list
Pete *except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft
Pete announcements. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who
Pete would prefer
I don't really care if they are split -- I can as easily re-join
them in my inbox.
But I do find the discussion has unearthed something that rather
disturbs me... hyperfocus on drafts only in your own WG's strikes
me as dangerous. A lot of stuff (even relevant stuff!) comes out
as personal
On 11/14/01 at 12:12 PM -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
hyperfocus on drafts only in your own WG's strikes me as dangerous.
I agree. However, that's not what *I'm* doing. With regard to I-D's:
1. I want immediate notification of drafts in WG's that I follow
because I will likely contribute to
At 4:28 PM -0800 11/13/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
offhand, I would make the split be between publishing activity and
other announcements.
Hence, both I-Ds and RFC announcements would be on one list, whereas
IETF Meeting, IETF Last call, Working Group Action announcements
would be on the other.
Gordon Mohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are multiple Base32 alphabets floating about
in Internet-Drafts. For example,
...
This discussion contained some good points, I hope the updates version
of this document includes them. In particular, I've added a URL and
Filename safe base64
At 12:12 PM 11/14/2001 -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Personally, I find it hard to (find the motivation to) keep up
with the IETF-discuss list, but I make a point of scanning all
the announcements.
As Pete notes, the issue he is raising is less about wanting to get only
part of the data, and more
Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
. ...
Yes, we should have a standard, but that standard should be usable across
the IETF. In the provreg WG, we're using XML Schema to specify a protocol
because XML and XML Schema provide needed extensibility features. I can't
use 2445-compliant date-time
John W Noerenberg II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5:46 PM + 11/14/01, Lloyd Wood wrote:
since when did the wider IETF community (if, indeed, there is such a
thing) read [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
One might get a sense of this by looking at the number of subscribers
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Royer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:14 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: 'Dawson Frank (NMP/Irving)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last Call: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps to
Proposed
But the IETF list is probably not the best place for an opinion contest
about the deployment of IPv6.
true. but at the same time, it's good for the wider IETF community to
discuss the state of IPv6 and the issues associated with deployment,
because it's not just IPv6 experts that need to be
At 5:46 PM + 11/14/01, Lloyd Wood wrote:
since when did the wider IETF community (if, indeed, there is such a
thing) read [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
One might get a sense of this by looking at the number of subscribers
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs. the number of people who show up at IETF
meetings.
18 matches
Mail list logo
