On 2007-01-04 07:56, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 1/3/07, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
It's always open to the WG to propose a resolution of the DISCUSS
that is radically different from what the discussing AD suggests,
too.
Yes, any group is free to try anything in the IETF pro
I should be ashamed of myself -- letting myself get ensnared in a
flamewar with Keith...
First, let's restore some context. We're talking about
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
specifically section 3.1; and I was taking exception to the last bullet
in 3.1:
]
] The IET
On 2007-01-04 14:32, John Leslie wrote:
I should be ashamed of myself -- letting myself get ensnared in a
flamewar with Keith...
First, let's restore some context. We're talking about
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
specifically section 3.1; and I was taking excepti
Original Message
I should be ashamed of myself -- letting myself get ensnared in a
flamewar with Keith...
First, let's restore some context. We're talking about
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
specifically section 3.1; and I was taking exception
Hi,
I'm going on vacation from December 22nd to January 7th. I will not have email
access between December 22 and December 26, and thereafter only sporadically.
I'll read your mail concerning "Posting of
draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-02.txt " when I'm back.
Have a good Holiday season :-)
On 1/4/07, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"a WG that needs a document published"
This choice of words implies that you're thinking of a WG as
an autonomous body with its own objectives.
It implies that WG members are humans with a limited amount of time,
so the goal quickly beco
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >The proper cure for the disease Keith names has been agreed upon
> > for years now: early cross-area expert review.
>
> I fully agree.
The question is whether this necessarily works to the intended effect.
I think that it has to be po
"a WG that needs a document published"
This choice of words implies that you're thinking of a WG as
an autonomous body with its own objectives.
It implies that WG members are humans with a limited amount of time,
so the goal quickly becomes "clear the DISCUSS", not "make the
Internet work bette
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> This choice of words implies that you're thinking of a WG as
> an autonomous body with its own objectives. But that isn't
> the way I look at any IETF WG. An IETF WG is a component of
> the IETF, and the IETF's first goal is "to make the I
Original Message
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The proper cure for the disease Keith names has been agreed upon
for years now: early cross-area expert review.
I fully agree.
The question is whether this necessarily works to the intended
effect.
I t
The demand to use BEEP was real.
Since the purpose of a middleware layer like beep is to provide uniformity
market failure is very much a disqualification.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
> > * EAP lower layer and GEE - Bernard's review pointed out
> that the EAP
> > lower layer transport requirements are not discussed in the
> GEE draft.
> > GEE is not an EAP lower layer. GEE is a protocol that the EAP lower
> > layer can use to allow multiple parallel authentications.
>
>
Let me forward my response with reducing quotes since it got bounced.
- Forwarded message from Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IETF last call on draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt
To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Y
Yoshi,
We are going in circles on this topic. What is your point? We have
already clarified that the figures will be removed since they are confusing.
Lakshminath
At 05:55 PM 1/4/2007, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
Let me forward my response with reducing quotes since it got bounced.
- Forwar
14 matches
Mail list logo
