--On 9. februar 2005 21:27 +0200 Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 09.02.05 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
!7. As bestween, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the
IASA,
Huh?!
I can't parse that.
Lynn said
According to my local dictionary, bestween isn't even a word. The
MS-Word copy that Lynn circulated uses the word between here, so
this is a typo in the ASCII diff.
I am doubtful that As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF,
through IASA, shall have... is not standard grammar, legal or
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Larry Masinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'The telnet URI Scheme' to Proposed Standard
I think it would be much more useful if we could update the
document sufficiently
At 10:56 10/02/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Lynn said that the ISOC lawyer said that this is standard legal grammar
for these are the parties whose relationship the next part of the
sentence describes.
I agree that it's not normal English.
Sorry, to interrupt your important
On Jan 29, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Q: Is there a list of changes from RFC 2476? [As the request is to
advance to Draft status, it would be nice to know if any changes
are of such scope and substance as to warrant remaining at
Proposed. Such a list would also aid reviewers,
Jefsey,
I think you can take it as a given that the IETF will not be providing any
explicit input into the WGIG process. ISOC is an active participant in the
process, and many IETF participants are, but IETF the standards maker is
not.
Instead, the IETF will continue formulating standards that
Date: 2005-02-08 19:57
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll try to respond to the issues and questions you raise, but
please note that the landscape here is strewn with dead horses
and that kicking them is not a particularly helpful or rewarding
activity.
Noted. Ditto for
Nathaniel == Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathaniel On Jan 29, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Q: Is there a list of changes from RFC 2476? [As the request is
to advance to Draft status, it would be nice to know if any
changes are of such scope and
Tom == Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Is this even Standards track? I don't know:-(
It's my understanding that with the exception of widely deployed URIs
documented for informational purpose, both the old and new URI
registration guidelines encourage standards-track URIs.
--Sam
On Thu February 10 2005 10:42, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
On Jan 29, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Q: Is there a list of changes from RFC 2476? [As the request is to
advance to Draft status, it would be nice to know if any changes
are of such scope and substance as to
--On torsdag, februar 10, 2005 10:49:50 -0500 Bruce Lilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. I have in mind a keyboard on a certain device which has
support for protocols which use domain names (HTTP, SMTP/
Internet Message Format, VPIM). It has a keyboard which
is at best inconvenient for
--On torsdag, februar 10, 2005 12:54:53 -0500 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4.3. Require Authentication
The MSA MUST issue an error response to the MAIL FROM command
if the session has not been authenticated using [SMTP-AUTH],
unless it has already independently
Hi Pekka,
Thanks for the comments.
Is IPv4 packet encapsulation specifically out of scope? Spell this out. Do
IEEE
and the other communities agree with this approach? (Not that I would disagree
-- just hoping that someone else doesn't go on to invent the v4 adaptation if
the IETF doesn't
The IEEE tends to call them LR-WPANs (low-rate wireless PANs), but I thought
lowpan would roll off the tongue a bit easier.
-gabriel
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:37:08 +0200, John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Low power PAN - personalarea network. But then I wade through these acronyms
for
Ted:
The suggestions ISOC made were pursuant to our lawyer's comments, so they
tend to have something to do with legalese. We are asking SkaddenArps to
reply to your note. But let me interject...
At 09:56 AM 02/09/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
Some comments, using Harald's diff as a starting
At 05:12 PM 02/10/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
I think the lawyer's desire for the word managed vs controlled is
seeking legal clarity in the terminology here. Managed is the usual
word for what the IAOC does in this context, and controlled isn't.
I agree that managed is what the IAOC does here.
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, gabriel montenegro wrote:
Is IPv4 packet encapsulation specifically out of scope? Spell this out. Do IEEE
and the other communities agree with this approach? (Not that I would disagree
-- just hoping that someone else doesn't go on to invent the v4 adaptation if
the IETF
--On torsdag, februar 10, 2005 17:56:42 -0800 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are we in a position to post a -07 draft responsive to these issues? When
I see such, I am prepared to open a board ballot.
As soon as I've seen a couple of hours pass with all parties seeming to be
reasonably
18 matches
Mail list logo
