--On Friday, 18 January, 2002 07:14 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Squeezing time out of turnip...
>
> Folks,
>
> There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting
> after the Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying
> to have it afterwards (after social
At 05:46 PM 1/18/02 -0500, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request to consider Message Disposition
>Notification as a Draft Standard,
>obsoleting RFC2298, currently a Proposed Standard.
My apologies for this late comment...
[[[
2.2 The Disposition-Notification-Options Header
AHA! A modification of my prior suggestion that the "sponsor
greetings, technical presentations, and routine reports (IANA, RFC
Editor, possibly IRTF)" might should simply be presented via the WEB,
I here suggest an interesting addendum:
At the Registration, reception. do a presentation of th
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:
> There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the
> Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards
> (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic.
Yes, but (as others have suggested) moving the social
Of course its true: "no amount of QOS can generate any additional bandwidth"
(That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)
> (That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)
Shouldn't references to MPLS be surrounded by ... tags?
cheers,
gja
yes.
if pos('',s)>=i then ignoredata:=1 else
if pos('',s)>=i then ignoredata:=0;
At 10:46 AM 1/22/02 +1100, grenville armitage wrote:
>
>> (That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)
>
>Shouldn't references to MPLS be surrounded by ... tags?
>
>cheers,
>gja
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] asks in jest:
>>Of course its true: "no amount of QOS can generate any additional bandwidth"
>But is the converse also true?
Seriously though I say:
Huh? If its free... QoS = not having QoS because everybody's app will ask
for it.
If there is a tarriffed QoS service every pro
On 1/21/02 3:00 PM, "Dan Kolis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course its true: "no amount of QOS can generate any additional bandwidth"
>
> (That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)
Hmm, wonder if "QOS" here might imply different things ...
Put aside the history where it came f
