Re: [dhcwg] Re: DHCID and the use of MD5 [Re: Last Call:'Resolution ofFQDN Conflicts among DHCP Clients' to ProposedStandard]

> "Ted" == Ted Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ted> On Monday 28 November 2005 20:00, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Ted> wrote: >> OK so why are you proposing a new protocol rather than writing >> a description of the protocols that are already in use? Ted> It's inconvenient to

RE: Printing IDs and RFCs (Was: Re: ASCII art)

> You mean something like http://draft-ietf-pwe3-satop.potaroo.net? No, all I want is to find the latest ID - the one on the IETF site. (If I go to watersprings they show me all archived versions, and I can easily find the latest one.) Y(J)S __

RE: Printing IDs and RFCs (Was: Re: ASCII art)

-- but I will in a couple of minutes from this posting! Sorry, but in my previous email (in reply to your previous one) I misunderstood your intention. I have tried it out, and it works great. The draft-ietf- is great, and I noticed that draft-stein works as well (although it brings up draft-

I-D file formats and internationalization

I've noticed that the recent debate on the ASCII text format has often conflated formatting of artwork and Unicode support. I think finding a non-text artwork format that has free uniform authoring (including diffs) and viewer support will be impossible for the next 5-10 years. An XML equivalent to

Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?

The reason we have the "deadline" is to protect the Secretariat from having to be heroes. However, best would be if the need for such protection didn't arise. Instead of assuming that things to be discussed in the meetings will be written just before the meeting, and creating complexity and burea

Re: ASCII art

Yaakov Stein wrote: I created a random svg file with Inkscape, a cross-platform svg drawing app. I created an element with src="pretty.svg"; it displayed inline in the cross-platform xxe XML editor using my xml2rfc plugin (but no inline editing of the graphic) and converte

RE: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?

Scott, Interesting thoughts. One thing I can see as being possibly a bit of a problem is that this approach - as opposed to the present one - would most likely impose a different sort of problem on a lot of people (the Secretariat, the host sponsor and the meeting Hotel - just to name a f

Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 10:07:27AM -0500, Gray, Eric allegedly wrote: > Making your - admittedly optimistic - assumption and following > it to a conclusion leads me to suspect that many (possibly most) WG > meetings would likely be subject to last-minute cancellation if all > remaining issues a

RE: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?

Scott, Hmmm. I thought your "optimistic" assumption was that people would try to resolve issues before the meetings. It may be that I misunderstood, or simply that I am not aware of much of what goes on in the background at meetings. At most meetings, the usual procedure is for

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

Robert, This is a good point. It even applies to the IETF secretariat. It used to be impossible to register with your "real name" if it contained non-ASCII characters. I think that has changed, I recall having Seen Olafur Gudmundson's badge with the real Icelandic "curly d" (or whatever it is

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

It was sad that people can accept this. To degrade the name of their friends. In every country this is insulting. It is good news you can type better. But this has not changed in RFC. If in the "thanks" section you hurt a name. The "thanked" person, will not be happy. Eduardo Mendez 2005/11/30,

RE: I-D file formats and internationalization

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Sayre > > Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current > IETF policy to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are > currently forced to misspell the names of authors and > contributors, which doesn't

RE: I-D file formats and internationalization

Ole Jacobsen writes... > This is a good point. It even applies to the IETF secretariat. It used to > be impossible to register with your "real name" if it contained non-ASCII > characters. I think that has changed, I recall having Seen Olafur > Gudmundson's badge with the real Icelandic "curly d"

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

Phillip: > > > I am currently at the W3C AC meeting. They are also involved in the > ongoing 'internet governance' discussions but the W3C is involved a > participant in the discussions while the IETF is one of the topics of > the discussions. Needless to say it is better to be a participant than

RE: Why are we so exceptional [was: Translations of standards (was: RE: ASCII art)]

Wouldn't having quasi-authoritative translations *result* in balkanization? The Chinese National Standard series comes immediately to mind of authoritative translations *with interpretations*. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) M

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

For that matter, most Americans don't speak English Mark On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Sayre Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current IETF policy to be incredibly bigoted. Man

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > It might seem odd to people whose names do fit in ASCII but there are a > lot of people who care about this type of issue. You can of course publish drafts and RFC's as XML which supports any character set you want. > The IETF has had the attitude 'this is > the w

Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

Making the xml source available is a boon for those working on subsequent revisions of a document. Many of the RFCs and I-Ds I've worked on have been derivative of earlier RFCs, and having an authorative source format available helps that considerably. Since I grok nroff, I've been able to make goo

Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

Just as a rough data point and to second Tony's note, I count about 120 active Internet drafts that are labeled '*bis*'. There are probably many more that don't follow this naming convention. All of these are presumably based on earlier published documents. Tony Hansen wrote: Making the xml s

Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

On Nov 29, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Gray, Eric wrote: One issue with to quickly responding to Bob's earlier questions is that the XML version - as Christian has already said - cannot be the authoritative/normative version of an RFC. I would qualify that someone by allowing that an XML version

Update: IETF Trust Consensus Call

Greetings - In response to concerns raised about the licensing provisions described in section 9.5 of the IETF Trust the Settlors have agreed to modify the language as follows: "9.5 Licenses. The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant licenses for the use of the Trust

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

Robert Sayre wrote: > I'm sure someone has already suggested this approach, > but I'll add my voice to the chorus. I really don't like this approach for various reasons. Bye, Frank __

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

On Nov 30, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: I'm sure someone has already suggested this approach, but I'll add my voice to the chorus. I really don't like this approach for various reasons. Rather than open

Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

*> > occasion, and the RFC Editors have sometimes (in non-crunch-time *> > situations) been quite happy to provide that. I'd much prefer having the *> > source files available at all times so I didn't have to ask them, or *> > make do without during those crunch times. *> > Tony, As

RE: I-D file formats and internationalization

*> > *> > Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current *> > IETF policy to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are *> > currently forced to misspell the names of authors and *> > contributors, which doesn't seem like correct attribution to *> > me. So, I recom

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

At 1:54 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote: Rather than opening RFCs to text utilizing any character-set anywhere, as this draft suggests, That is not what the RFC suggests at all. The character set is Unicode. The encoding is UTF-8. T

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

Douglas Otis wrote: > there could be alternative UTF fields for an author's name > and reference titles, For the new 3066bis language tags registry we adopted the known 𒍅 notation for u+012345. As Bob said raw UTF-8 characters won't fly with `cat rfc4567 > /dev/lpt1` and other simple uses of RFC

RE: Why are we so exceptional [was: Translations of standards (was: RE: ASCII art)]

At 19:59 30/11/2005, Burger, Eric wrote: Wouldn't having quasi-authoritative translations *result* in balkanization? No. The current system leads to balkanization: - exclusively ASCII standards call for translation. Since there is no possible cross-verification, the understanding may diverge.

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 1:54 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote: Rather than opening RFCs to text utilizing any character-set anywhere, as this draft suggests, That is not what the RFC suggests at all. The character set is Unicode. The encoding is UTF-8. Th

Re: I-D file formats and internationalization

At 5:59 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote: On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 1:54 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote: Rather than opening RFCs to text utilizing any character-set anywhere, as this draft suggests, That is not what the RFC suggests at all. The charact

Internationalization by ASCII art (was Re: I-D file formats and internationalization)

Robert Sayre wrote: > Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current IETF policy > to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are currently forced to > misspell the names of authors and contributors, which doesn't seem > like correct attribution to me. It is your stupidity that you c

Re: Internationalization by ASCII art (was Re: I-D file formats and internationalization)

On 11/30/05, Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Sayre wrote: > > > Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current IETF policy > > to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are currently forced to > > misspell the names of authors and contributors, which doesn't seem > >