I have indeed asked the sergeants-at-arms to consider this
under RFC 3005.
Brian
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Pekka" == Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pekka> I'd be more than happy to support a move to ban Mr
Pekka> Glassey. Is it time for a PR-action ?
I don't understand why RF
At 02:55 12/09/2006, Carl Malamud wrote:
> > IMHO, fighting the messenger is not the proper solution to the
> > problem.
>
>The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying. That is totally
>inappropriate behavior.
I understand. But this is nothing compared with what I received to
support me an
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:02:02AM +0200, Jefsey_Morfin wrote:
> What is necessary, now the doubt is here and Brian has good support,
> is to find a way out. As an external user interested in the impact of
> the IETF deliverables - as a technology maintenance center - I
> observe that most of th
Hoping against hope that this might be the last post in the thread, but one
never knows...
I'm following up to Carl's note, but I'm speaking to the community.
IMHO, fighting the messenger is not the proper solution to the
problem.
The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying. That is tota
Hi,
We are analyzing for migrating to IPv6. As part
of this activity, we are successful
in scenario A
but failing in Scenario B:
Scenario A.
Communication between IPv6 client application on dual layer
node and IPv6 server application on dual layer
node[Vista].
Scenario B.
Comm
I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome
of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent.
I think that Carl has fallen into an old rhetorical trap here. If the rules of
a forum prohibit an accusation that you want to introduce t
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:08 AM
Subject: Please make the madness stop (was: a whole bunch of flames)
> Hoping against hope that this might be the last post in the thread, but
one
> never knows...
>
>
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:44:34AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm following up to Carl's note, but I'm speaking to the community.
>
> You mean to this Mailing List - and only this Mailing List - you are NOT
> speaking to the IETF Community or to th
Eliot,
The discussion of the question you asked here seems to have been
immediately sidetracked. I, at least, believe the original
question is worth some community discussion and possibly a
conclusion. More below.
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:39 PM +0200 Eliot Lear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value
of B is independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth
value of B is in fact dependent on the character of A there is no
fallacy.
True. But I'm not s
John C Klensin wrote:
> Eliot,
>
> The discussion of the question you asked here seems to have been
> immediately sidetracked. I, at least, believe the original question
> is worth some community discussion and possibly a conclusion. More
> below.
Thank you, John. You've caught the jist of my c
John,
While I agree that the IESG unlikely to change how it behaves I still don't
think you have explained why it should resist changing the process so that it
describes how it behaves in actual practice.
Phill
> -Original Message-
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> S
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:24:50 +0200, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
> > Eliot,
> >
> > The discussion of the question you asked here seems to have been
> > immediately sidetracked. I, at least, believe the original question
> > is worth some community discussion and
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:04:54AM -0400,
Henning Schulzrinne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 48 lines which said:
> Having a more formal description of state machines is a natural next
> step from having, say, a good syntax description in ABNF.
> Unfortunately, unlike ABNF, none of the
help
<>___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On Tuesday, 12 September, 2006 13:26 -0700 "Hallam-Baker,
Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> While I agree that the IESG unlikely to change how it behaves
> I still don't think you have explained why it should resist
> changing the process so that it describes how it behaves in
>
On Tuesday, September 12, 2006 06:06:08 PM -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are correct. I did not address that issue, partially
because, personally, I do not consider it very important. While
documenting what we are doing would be nice, I don't believe the
community is
17 matches
Mail list logo
