Hi,
The registration says the hotel is already full. Is this for real --
900 rooms already taken, within 11 hours??
(Or is the reservation system just broken like in many other times..)
On Mon, 17 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
60th IETF Meeting
August 1-6, 2004
San Diego, CA
Hi,
The registration says the hotel is already full. Is this for real --
900 rooms already taken, within 11 hours??
no - there are rooms of all three kinds available if you call the
reservation-desk directly.
(Phone: 1-619-291-2900 or 1-877-734-2726)
I just got my confirmation mail back from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Anderson) writes:
... For the less technical, an exchange point is ...
I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.
--
Paul Vixie
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes:
Unicast: A, E, H, L
Anycast: B, C, D, F, G, I, J, K, M (now or planned)
The thing that worries me is that apparently, there is no policy about
this whatsoever, the root operators each get to decide what they want
to do.
The table is
hi, i've the same problem (from last night around 12:00PM GMT+1), and if
you click on the book now link just below the picture, it says:
We're Sorry
But your chosen hotel cannot currently be reserved online. However, you
can still book a room at this hotel by calling 888-625-5144 in the
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 02:16, Paul Vixie wrote:
SNIP
If you'd like to unify something, perhaps it could be DNS client behaviour
and network-owner recursive caching forwarder design. And while you're at
it, please outlaw those fiendish DNS-based load balancers. f-root should
still be a
I forwarded this info to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and it was fixed (a
license got installed) within 24 hours.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 18 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
If you'd like to unify something, perhaps it could be DNS client behaviour
and network-owner recursive caching forwarder design. And while you're at
it, please outlaw those fiendish DNS-based load balancers. f-root should
still be a 486DX2-66 like it was
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 18:55, Joe Baptista wrote:
On 18 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
If you'd like to unify something, perhaps it could be DNS client behaviour
and network-owner recursive caching forwarder design. And while you're at
it, please outlaw those fiendish DNS-based load
Dear Paul,
pardon me for the previous response. I could not resist!
This post of yours is a very important one as it expresses, from experience
and in IETF wording, what I try to convey from another origin, experience,
modelization, architectural logic and culture.
At 02:16 18/05/04, Paul Vixie
At 01:35 18/05/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Anderson) writes:
... For the less technical, an exchange point is ...
I don't think there's anyone on this list less technical than you, Dean.
Thank you :-)
jfc
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL
I think is unacceptably TODAY, specially for IETF, that we should use a phone instead
of on-line or email confirmation.
We should not accept hotels that don't make usage of technology to arrange our
meetings.
We aren't asking the hotel (today) to support IPv6, but at least just IPv4 !
--On Tuesday, May 18, 2004 18:01:05 +0200 jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. first target: distribution of the root machines through a root server
matrix and core network -
Yes, this is already done. It works, even if it is not top-guided as you
envision.
containing local root information to
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I think is unacceptably TODAY, specially for IETF, that we should use a phone instead
of on-line or email confirmation.
We should not accept hotels that don't make usage of technology to arrange our
meetings.
We aren't asking the hotel (today) to support IPv6, but at
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:39:13PM +0200, Leif Johansson wrote:
Big hotels that are cheap and where the staff won't throw a fit
when we all turn up in force, laptops, duct-tape and all, don't
exactly grow on trees you know! I'm happy if it has a bar.
:)
All we need is 802.11beer, beer over
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think is unacceptably TODAY, specially for IETF, that we should use
a phone instead of on-line or email confirmation.
We should not accept hotels that don't make usage of technology to
arrange our meetings.
Are you expecting,
On 18-mei-04, at 3:08, Bill Manning wrote:
None (to my knowledge) of the roots have a consistant view of
a shared anycast vision, so you should not read too much into
the summaries found in the RSSAC notes.
Which is exactly the problem.
% It seems to me that any design that
On 18-mei-04, at 2:16, Paul Vixie wrote:
Unicast: A, E, H, L
Anycast: B, C, D, F, G, I, J, K, M (now or planned)
The thing that worries me is that apparently, there is no policy about
this whatsoever, the root operators each get to decide what they want
to do.
The table is round. Policies are
Sigh.
Harald, Please add __Another__ complaint to the chair about inappropriate
behavior by Mr. Vixie.
Oh wait, could it be that lying to the general public saying our address
space is hijacked is a personal attack? Hmm. Maybe they aren't as
'perfessional' as they made out to be. Maybe these
On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 05:56 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
We should also remember that the people don't comes just from US. When
I called they (not very kindly) suggested me if I can call back in 6
hours (!) because registration services doesn't work so early.
Incredible, this is
On 18 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
The result is a service which has never been down hard, not ever, not for
any millisecond out of the last 15 years. This is strength by diversity.
This isn't quite true. There have been multiple server failures. And if I
recall, I think that there have been
On 18 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
Careful design by whom? Organic compared to what? I assure you that f-root
has grown by careful design. It's only organic in that we go where we're
invited rather than having a gigantic budget that could be used as a leash.
Do you mean Careful Design like
Glen Zorn writes:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think is unacceptably TODAY, specially for IETF, that we should use
a phone instead of on-line or email confirmation.
We should not accept hotels that don't make usage of technology to
arrange our
Dear Måns,
your points would be well taken if we were talking of the same thing (you
will note that I was very carefull quoting ICP-3). When was the last time
IETF discussed the way to respond ICANN's ICP-3 call? (what I am try
doing). There is a resulting difference of perspective.
- I talk
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
On 18 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
The result is a service which has never been down hard, not ever, not for
any millisecond out of the last 15 years. This is strength by diversity.
This isn't quite true. There have been multiple server failures.
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
On 18 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
The result is a service which has never been down hard, not ever, not for
any millisecond out of the last 15 years. This is strength by diversity.
This isn't quite true. There have been multiple server
Mr. Anderson,
I note that your use of the terms infantile, irresponsible and
immature are personal attacks. These are inappropriate for the IETF list.
If you have serious complaints to make that you feel require you to use
these terms, send them to me privately.
If you want to send mail to the
After re-checking with legal counsel, I repeat what I said before, trying
to be as clear as possible:
Bouncing a message to the sender is NOT public defamation.
Therefore, your complaint about defamation has no merit.
Dean, I believe that:
- your complaint about the apparently incorrect
29 matches
Mail list logo
