I think both are reasonable tools for implementation of the principle.
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 00:38:22 -0500 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Not to interject specifics into a near consensus, but wouldn't it be
reasonable to require that either:
1) Software to access and alter dat
Not to interject specifics into a near consensus, but wouldn't it be
reasonable to require that either:
1) Software to access and alter data be open-source and provided,
or
2) data be in a well-defined and documented format for which software to
manipulate the data can be promptly produced (e
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote:
> >both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at
> >least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly,
> >large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn aro
At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote:
both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at
least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly,
large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT
again.
True. Obviously the techology is of th
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
> >On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> >
> >>>What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some
> >>>LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
> >>
> >>That the affirmati
On 7 Dec 2004, at 15:46, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That
some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
That the affirmation that no RIR has ever
At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some
LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong,
and that its docum
The most helpful aspect of this exercise is that is is helping to define
with the IETF what it wants to happen going forward. With good will and a
certain amount of professionalism on all sides, I don't think it should be
too hard to get from here to there.
I agree that this is about the future
Thus spake "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong,
and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected.
You see, a user only cares about what he realy gets. A partner of mine was
unable to get an IPv4 add
On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some
LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is
wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no o
At 17:29 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in
getting a new
chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP?
On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in
getting a new
chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP?
=> the administrative procedures used
At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting
a new
chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP?
=> the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are
so heavy than nobo
all of Harald's suggestions work for me (although I'd like to keep/make
what is subject to appeal as tight as possible to avoid DoS attacks
on the IETF)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 2004/12/07, Bob Kahn wrote:
> I think it fair to state in the document what the IETF thinks appropriate
> for it to manage its own affairs going forward, but one of the matters we
> will have to work out is the fact that there is considerable IP generated
> over the past almost twenty years.
In the BCP document version -02, released today, there is a list of
outstanding issues.
(in advance of the I-D publication, it, and the diff files, are available
from http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/)
I believe that most if not all of these are issues for which there is rough
consensus
Sam -
I think you're covered under Harald's language. Your worry was
"sublicense" ... at the general principle level, that's
certainly clear. Needless to say, at the implementation level
(the actual contract), the lawyers/IAD/IAOC will want to make
sure the principle made it in.
The current wor
> >>>I don't think "irrevocably assigned to the IETF" works
> >>>well for money.
> >
> >
> > I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles,
> > namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad.
> > This is what it sais in my working copy:
> >
my co-editor Rob did not think the reading
In your previous mail you wrote:
Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting a new
chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP?
=> the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are
so heavy than nobody wants to follow them to get some addres
Bert asks:
Here is a new proposed text:
3.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work
involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal cus
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> --On tirsdag, desember 07, 2004 04:49:36 -0500 Sam Hartman
Harald> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> writes:
>>
Harald> 6. The IE
--On tirsdag, desember 07, 2004 04:49:36 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald>6. The IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual
Harald> right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and
Ha
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald>6. The IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual
Harald> right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and
Harald> create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF
Harald> activi
Looks good to me
Brian
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
After a brief trip to the lawyer, and considering current discussion...
a new suggestion:
Replace principle 6 with the following:
6. The IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual
right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, m
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Iresponded to Harald:
Harald writes:
Brian,
I don't think "irrevocably assigned to the IETF" works well for money.
I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles, namely at principle
5.
It does not read so bad. This is what it sais in my working copy:
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Changed text as suggested by Leslie.
I had re-send my request for inpout while on the plane.
I have now seen both Leslies and Margarets responses.
Leslie's changes are fine for me, thanks.
Brian
Thanks,
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:[EMAI
26 matches
Mail list logo
