Hi Spencer,
On Thursday 24 February 2005 13:15, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Maybe we could improve the announcements to say what the WG (WGs?)
are for a draft, and we could quit twisting in this self-inflicted
wind?
But isn't it already the case? Quoting I-D announce:
A New Internet-Draft is
Merci bien pour votre suggestions ... JSPF (Je suis pas francais). :))
Regards,
Carl
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
This is an interesting proposal, however I would suggest that
the grammatical mistakes relative to the french language
and the cultural references be fixed.
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 10:32, Marshall Rose wrote:
may i draw your attention to the Simple Lightweight RFID Reader
Protocol BOF being held at IETF 62?
Isn't putting not just one, but _two_ diminutives
into a name severely tempting the gods?
Mike
signature.asc
Description:
Spencer,
It seems to me that there is another issue here, one that is
quite real, happens fairly regularly, and that may call for some
rethinking down the line.
Suppose you post a draft, as draft-dawkins-foo-bar-00, as a
means of documenting an idea to see if a currently-operating WG
is
On 24 Feb 2005, at 10:00, Carl Malamud wrote:
Merci bien pour votre suggestions ... JSPF (Je suis pas francais). :))
Tiny grammatical nits in the last paragraph of section 5:
- In summary, for senders and receivers of email, use of the
- No-Solicit: mechanism would be simply to understand and
On Feb 24, 2005, at 06:55, Michael Thomas wrote:
Isn't putting not just one, but _two_ diminutives
into a name severely tempting the gods?
almost certainly. further, some folks just don't like rfid, so we've
got a triple crown going...
/mtr
___
Ietf
On Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:04:26 AM -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer,
It seems to me that there is another issue here, one that is
quite real, happens fairly regularly, and that may call for some
rethinking down the line.
Suppose you post a draft, as
I read the first draft of this document, and wondered:
Does this propose to change IETF behavior on list management, so that the
name of the list (usually same as working group) is not put in the Subject:
using the feature of mailman that does this?
When it was just a draft, it was just
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 13:23 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I agree with Spencer - a filename is just a filename, and
shouldn't carry metadata. It should not be used as the way to
decide what WG a document belongs to, and it _also_ should not
be used to
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to allow them to
be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF they are now a WG draft
AND they've been previously published as an individual submission.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
The notion that
Hi Brian -
I read the first draft of this document, and wondered:
Does this propose to change IETF behavior on list management, so that the
name of the list (usually same as working group) is not put in the Subject:
using the feature of mailman that does this?
That isn't the specific
Hi -
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt says:
Internet-Drafts must be in ASCII. No 8bit chars are currently allowed.
If you need to include codepoints, a suggestion might be to use the
unicode convention: U+, where X is a hexadecimal digit.
So, for the quotes, if retaining the
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 16:03 -0500 Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to
allow them to be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF
they are now a WG draft AND they've been previously published
as an individual submission.
on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
[...]
Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for the
life of the document, and that is the practice we have been following in
the Kerberos WG since its creation (well before I became chair). We have
Date: 2005-02-21 17:48
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On mandag, februar 21, 2005 13:20:54 -0500 Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Unicode code size increased overnight by more than 4
orders of magnitude (a factor of 65536) when it went from 16 bits
65536 code
From: Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I apologize for not being sufficiently clear.
But part of the issue appears to be one of being sufficiently informed.
Given the flip-flop on musical notation, I expect that the consortium
will have no trouble finding other non-text things to encode
Hi -
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt says:
Internet-Drafts must be in ASCII. No 8bit chars are currently allowed.
If you need to include codepoints, a suggestion might be to use the
unicode convention: U+, where X is a hexadecimal digit.
So, for the quotes, if retaining
On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
o 16-bit Unicode matched well with 16-bit wchar_t
wchar_t is 32 bits on all the computers near me. This is one reason
why UTF-16 is irritating for the C programmer.
o while the raw data size doubles in going from 16 bits per character
to 32
On Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:55:20 PM +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
[...]
Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for
the life of the document, and that is the practice we have been
The document does not discuss the type of mailing list subject labels
that you're referring to.
I'm arguing that a better title of the document would be
Legislated Labels in Email Subject Headers Considered
Ineffective At Best
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Carl Malamud
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 16:03 -0500 Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to
allow them to be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF
they are now a WG draft AND they've been previously published
as an individual submission.
But not
Eric,
let not confuse the issues. There is no problem in introducing a Draft for
information. This Draft should only be a about color code for displaying
the URI when the U/IRI is displayed in a non unique color. It should only
include an introduction to document the needs for a multicolored
At 00:15 25/02/2005, Carl Malamud wrote:
http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ has the xml source and the
html rendition. In the xml, I use the proper utf-8, which shows up
in full glory in the html. For the ascii version, I concur with
Randy's opinion that it makes the most sense to sacrifice
Hi, Julien,
I'm enjoying the conversation in this thread, but do need to provide a
word of explanation:
- I actually believed Coya, and spent several IETFs doing the
newcomers orientation and WG chair training telling people that they
DON'T have to rename drafts,
- I got significant pushback
Carl Malamud wrote:
my repeated apologies to any citizens of Freedonia as well
Maybe you could mention that RfC 3834 with its [Auto] label
is and was no problem, and it doesn't need any solicitation
classes to work. But don't mention Re: unless you REally
plan to REvive some endless threads,
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:03:32 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to allow them to
be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF they are now a WG draft
AND they've been previously published as an individual submission.
from the line of
... it's just a name - and it's not like working groups are (or that
working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt a draft as a
working group draft.
I see this as a bigger problem - some working groups that have more
work in individual drafts than in working group drafts, because
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The 'tag' URI scheme '
draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie.
Technical Summary
The authors
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Securing FTP with TLS '
draft-murray-auth-ftp-ssl-16.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie.
Technical Summary
This
The IESG has approved the following documents:
- 'LDAP:String Representation of Distinguished Names '
draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-16.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters '
draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'LDAP: Directory Information
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area.
The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following description
was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by March 2nd.
+++
The Internet Fax (fax) working group in the Applications Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Ted Hardie and Scott Hollenbeck.
The mailing list will remain active.
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
The Inter-Domain Multicast Routing (idmr) working group in the Routing Area
has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and Alex Zinin.
The mailing list will remain active.
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
33 matches
Mail list logo
