hello,
Can i get intermediate drafts of any standard network layer protocol like IPv4 or IPv6. I am studying how protocols are designed and the features added over time etc.
Normally, those drafts are removed and not found on the internet, only the last complete RFC remains.
I would be thankful if
Unfortunately, as you will see by looking at any current
Internet Draft, these drafts are automatically withdrawn after
6 months (or as soon as they are updatded), so you won't find old
ones on the ietf.org site. You may find them on some unofficial
sites.
If you look at http://www.ietf.org/html.ch
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23:03 PM +0200 Jeroen Massar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:52 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people
arguing about xml versus nroff (again). If you write Internet
Draf
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses
> that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list
> against the list that has actually been signed up on the wg's
> mailinglist and filter out discrepancies, might
>/\
> Consensus: / \___
>/\
> Rough Consensus / \___/\___
> Badly phrased question: ___/\/\/\/\___
Right. Like most techniques, "voting" is a tool. And like any tool, it
can be misused, or ineffective.
Voting breaks down when
Hi All,
I agree with what Thomas is saying below, with on clarification...
At 7:27 AM -0400 4/7/05, Thomas Narten wrote:
Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the reason
being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In contrast, the
results of a hum are more subject to interpr
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the reason
being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In contrast, the
results of a hum are more subject to interpretation, where one's
perspective of the results of a hum may well depend on whic
Hello;
The trouble with voting (as opposed to straw polls)
in a setting such as this is that it opens
the door for vote packing, which I have seen happen in other
organizations, with very bad results.
If anyone who comes can vote, what's to stop Company XYZ from
sending enough people to the WG me
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 08:05 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> In the IETF, we use straw polls to get a sense of how many people in
> the room have an opinion on a particular topic,
This room factor is also one of the reasons why I mentioned e-mail in my
message. Each WG has a set of active part
Hi Pekka,
Maybe a part of the issue is that when the minute-taker is not a
chair, it may be more difficult to document the result of the
consensus call.
The chairs should really be making the call, announcing it in the room
"looks like we have consensus on X", and asking the note takers to
recor
> But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings,
but we do not count hands - we look to see if there is a clear
difference between hands one way and or the other
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hello;
While as far as I know there is no central repository, I have always been able
to find
old (intermediate) drafts in the last 5 years by going to
- the IETF proceedings (google with site:ietf.org and the draft name, including
the version)
- the mirror sites for drafts and
- a general goo
On Tue, 2005/04/05 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue April 5 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC
2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly
state that the RFC Editor uses nroff.
Yes, but speaking from per
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO neither nroff source nor XML source qualify as "easily produced".
A text editor -- any text editor -- suffices for nroff source.
That includes vi, emacs, textpad (MS Windows), SiED (PalmOS), etc.
Same for editing XML sources, of course. One d
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I think the main reason is that any time we needed custom
handling for a topic it was easy to write a macro to handle it; the
same thing in XML would probably mean adding preprocessors (perhaps an
xsl transform).
Yes, I use preprocessors (t
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about
25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from
nroff than from XML,
To be fair, poor output quality is not XML's fault, it is tool's fault.
Popular tools i
Hi -
I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and features
added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official
incantation of "they're gone."
Try this site:
http://www.watersprings.org/
You'll find all drafts and diff's between them.
Regards,
Carl
> Un
On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] my concern, particularly regarding
a document with the formidable word "Requirements" in its title, is
that there should also be provision for those who prefer to use
troff/nroff.
I am going to add the following to the ID Submission draft:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner) writes:
> > But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings,
> but we do not count hands - we look to see if there is a clear
> difference between hands one way and or the other
I agree that this is exactly how we should be using hums/polls.
But I'm sure many o
> Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for
> IETFDraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC)
> Date: 2005-04-06 09:12
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The free site I found says "voting"; of course, what the IETF
> can use such things for is only straw polls
Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
what the toy shows after about a day is:
prefer nroff: 8
prefer xml: 37
neither: 9
which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course.
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, I thought I'd try something daring. We have people
argui
Another site to check out would be
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/xids-ietf.html - all versions of a draft and
diffs between versions seem to be archived here also.
Regards,
Arvind
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Carl Malamud
> Sent: Th
> "Pekka" == Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pekka> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> Personally, I'm more in favor of "votes" than just hums, the
>> reason being that a count of hands is unambiguous data. In
>> contrast, the results of a hum are more subject
I don't disagree. Counting heads is a blunt instrument for subtle
questions. But there are cases where it's informative.
Brian
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETFDraftSubmission
Toolset' to Informational RFC)
Date: 2005-04-06 09:12
From: Brian E
> Date: 2005-04-06 12:45
> From: "Alex Rousskov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still submit
> their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just will not
> submit their sources.
Which implies, for the case of documents where f
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: 2005-04-06 12:45
From: "Alex Rousskov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still
submit their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just
will not submit their sources.
Whi
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 07:18 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > Just like the above, except that the chairs can see the email addresses
> > that people gave when they voted. They could then check this list
> > against the list that has actually been sig
On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
> Title : Ncc in Mail Header
> Author(s) : A. Sankar
> Filename: draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt
> Pages
> On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> >
> >
> > Title : Ncc in Mail Header
> > Author(s) : A. Sankar
> > Filename: draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt
> > Page
On Thu April 7 2005 12:21, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which implies, for the case of documents where figures (etc.) differ
> > in PostScript/PDF and plain text versions, that there will still be a
> > substantial amount of manual effort required
On Tue March 15 2005 10:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
> Title : Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF
> Author(s) : D. Crocker, P. Overell
> Filename: draft-cr
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Draft section 8 states:
Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
content matches plain text format (R143/a).
That would seem to be unnecessary if PostScript
> On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Draft section 8 states:
> >
> >Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
> >must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
> >content matches plain text format (R143/a).
> >
> > That would see
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), wrote:
On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draft section 8 states:
>
>Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript format
>must not be auto-posted until the Toolset can validate that their
>content matches plain text format (R143/a).
>
>
On 14:48 07/04/2005, Jeroen Massar said:
In short. if you don't have a lot of financial backing one is not
getting anywhere in an organization that is supposed to based on
individuals, whom are supposed to be doing work on free open internet
standards, but are unable to do so over that internet
35 matches
Mail list logo
