Sam,
Back on Nov 1'st, you started this thread with the following:
> I'm speaking here as an individual. I'd like to build consensus
> for my position both within the IESG and within the community,
> but I realize that if I fail to build that consensus, I cannot
> make this objection as a singl
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi -
I actually think the question of how a namespace is to be administered
is a perfectly valid one for the IETF to consider if it impacts the
performance or functionality of a protocol.
Yes, as long as it can be expressed technically. RFC 2826 and
http://www.iab.org/do
Hi,
On Nov 29, 2006, at 12:52 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I did not see any consensus on that issue when it was brought to
NANOG-m.
Interesting. I didn't notice any support for separating the 32-bit
quantity into two sections, but I remember many people decrying
the need for any separato
Hello,
We are trying to deploy an IMS network but we have an interoperability
problem between 2 Softswitches that we have in our NGN network, one of
them supports SIP-I (based on ITU-T Q.1912.5) and the other one supports
SIP-T (based on RFC 3398). We need to define which standard is better,
thin
> "ken" == ken carlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ken> Sam, Back on Nov 1'st, you started this thread with the
ken> following:
>> I'm speaking here as an individual. I'd like to build
>> consensus for my position both within the IESG and within the
>> community, but I r
You probably want to post your question to two different WG mailing
lists. The first is speermint and the second is enum.
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/speermint-charter.html
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html
Regards
Jason
Fro
I'm speaking here as an individual. I'd like to build
consensus for my position both within the IESG and within the
community, but I realize that if I fail to build that
consensus, I cannot make this objection as a single IESG
member.
ken> Its now been about 2 weeks since the last comment
My research group, as well as everyone who currently uses PlanetLab (and
presumably the future GENI platform, if it comes to pass) faces a
different deployment scenario than what the operational folks are used
to. Setting up anycast might be possible, but is operationally very very
difficult for lo
> "ken" == ken carlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm speaking here as an individual. I'd like to build
consensus for my position both within the IESG and within the
community, but I realize that if I fail to build that
consensus, I cannot make this objec
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
There was very little support outside of those involved in the
ieprep working group for the ieprep work.
I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in
either direction about much of anything.
I guess I'm confused. Generally, w
I'll echo Fred's comments, and just add this...
I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in either
direction about much of anything.
your original note asked about consensus of closing the group --
that's the focus of the discussion point you brought to our attention
on t
Total of 116 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Dec 1 00:03:01 EST 2006
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
11.21% | 13 | 12.70% |81616 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6.90% |8 | 7.53% |48396 | [EMAIL PROTECTE
> From: Emin Gun Sirer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> My terminology is correct, and your message is a simple ad
> hominem.
No his argument was not an ad hominem.
An ad hominem argument is an argument of the form 'Osama Bin Laden believes X,
Osama Bin Laden is a bad person, therefore X is fals
13 matches
Mail list logo
