Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Disclaimer: IANAL, and this message is not intended as legal advice.
Please, read RFC3979 for yourself, and if you have concerns as to what
your obligations are or what you can get away with, consult a lawyer.
On Wednesday, June 07, 2006 02:22:06 PM -0400 "Gray, Eric"
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Although I'm an IAB member, I'd rather make my one comment
on this draft in public.
I think it misses one point that should be mentioned. The
easiest way to explain it is to suggest new text:
4.4. Avoiding interference between publication streams
Unfortunately the genesis of some IP is not that easily dealt with - In fact
EACH and EVERY contributor must be named, since their rights to the core
genesis are something that are either defined in an agreement or somethign
for resolution before a trier of fact in some form.
Todd
- Original
So how about concluding that there is no single
right answer to Iljitsch's question, but there may
be scope for defining considerations for the choice
of data encoding?
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinf
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Ray,
On 6-jun-2006, at 16:31, Ray Pelletier wrote:
I am pleased to report this 6th day of June 2006 that IETF FTP, Mail
& Web support IPv6.
I was wondering: would it be possible to publish statistics about
IPv4 vs IPv6 traffic for these services?
I have
This is not especially on-topic here, but since (a) there are
probably more people here who have an interest in debugging/reviewing
RFC 2445 documents than anywhere else and (b) there are probably more
people here for whom a maintained calendar of meetings is a wildly
useful thing, I though
Brian -
In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document
that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so.
These are the facts as I understand them.
1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel
the "RFC Editor", but more recently u
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't.
Eliot
__
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that an
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
The IAB document is consistent with the operationa
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
What d
At 02:31 PM 6/9/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that an
At 02:48 PM 6/9/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
The IAB document is consistent
with the operational facts
that have governed operatio
Mike,
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
That's a mischaracterization of what I said, an
At 04:09 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
That
*>
*> I think there is a middle ground that can exist - a contract between
*> IAOC representing IETF and ISI representing RFC Editor where RFC Editor
*> agrees to publish documents submitted to it by IETF (i.e. they'll not
*> be able to say no to IETF request to publish document even if
I do not support approval of this experiment. I opine that most
of the "publication delay" is due to WG/author choice, not the
downref rule. I also offer an alternative cure which keeps in place
the downref rule in published RFCs.
If a WG or individual is pursuing publication of a Standard Trac
18 matches
Mail list logo