On 27-mrt-04, at 18:36, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
If we are to change the process that produces this stuff, we HAVE to
understand what the reasons are that reasonable, competent people
produce things that are sub-par, broken or crap. And IMHO, we can't
do that without saying what these
In the spirit of well, if highlighting a difference of opinion is the first step
toward
resolving it, then we're on our way.:
Can we can ask Amazon to include RFCs in their product listings, and then let
reviewers, consumers, proponents and objectors to use product rating mechanisms to
help
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
| Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
| Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:38 PM
| To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
| Cc: IETF Discussion
| Subject: Re: Naming crap (Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents)
|
| On 27-mrt-04, at
Dear all,
With the help of some kindness man, I have got the 'CallPlot', which has been upload
to the following address now,
http://www.vanstep.com/Download/Code/CallPlot/callplot-0.1.tgz
http://www.vanstep.com/Download/Code/CallPlot/callplot-src-0.1.tgz
Please take them as you need, they are
From: Dassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Harald Tveit
Alvestrand' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'IETF Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: Naming crap (Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents)
Personally and from observation
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:38:13 +0200
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
To me it seems that the IETF can't make up its mind: are RFCs just
drafts that don't expire, or are they hugely
This I-D does not even mention IPv6 -- any particular reason for not
to? :-)
Until now, it seems there have been at least 5-10 different NAT
traversing/reversing techniques, designed for about every application
requiring it. But doing NAT traversal to get IPv6 connectivity would
have
--On 27. mars 2004 13:12 -0500 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note: The changed IESG review of RFC Editor documents does NOT change
the IESG review for individual submissions to the standards track or
individual submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical
review, as
