We're rapidly approaching diminishing returns here...
On 2007-01-16 21:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking resolution of
DISCUSSes)
Ted Hardie schrieb:
At 5:42 PM +0100 1/15/07, Julian Reschke wrote:
(2) Compatibility with RFC2518
The Last Call announcement states:
While the WEBDAV working group was originally chartered to produce a
draft standard update to RFC 2518, this documented is being targeted
as a replacement
Cullen Jennings schrieb:
...
(4b) Unnecessary new requirements: an example is the new (MUST-level)
requirement to submit a Depth header with PROPFIND (issue 213). This
is just one of several cases where the draft made changes for no
apparent reason; that is, there was no problem with what
During the IETF Last Call for draft-manral-ipsec-rfc4305-bis-errata,
we received a comment that deserves wide exposure.
For ESP encryption algorithms, the document that was sent out for
Last Call contains the following table:
RequirementEncryption Algorithm (notes)
Steven M. Bellovin writes:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is
Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one
whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
supposed to work.
That's a pretty basic disconnect.
Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3.3.a.E gives this authorization, but excluding patents.
There seems to be disagreement about that. Is there support for
updating BCP 78 to clarify the above?
There is, in the form of approving -outbound and -inbound. See
resolution of issues
On 2007-01-17 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
supposed to work.
That's a pretty basic disconnect.
Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
The way it's described in
At 9:45 AM -0500 1/17/07, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 16 January, 2007 18:44 -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) This version still has some editor's notes. Are these
intended for publication?
No. I had intended to change the xml2rfc parameters to shut
them
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-01-17 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
supposed to work.
That's a pretty basic disconnect.
Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
The
Randall Gellens wrote:
(1) This version still has some editor's notes. Are these intended
for publication?
No. The writeup didn't get copied into the Last Call, but as WG chair, I
believe that the document is complete if all the editor's notes are
deleted. Some of them point to areas that
At 8:44 PM +0100 1/17/07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
(2) In section 1.3:
An i18mail user has one or more non-ASCII email addresses. Such a
user may have ASCII addresses too; if the user has more than one
email account and corresponding address, or more than one alias for
the
At 8:44 PM +0100 1/17/07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
(3) In section 4.3:
the risk should be
minimized by the fact that the selection of submission servers are
presumably under the control of the sender's client and the selection
of potential intermediate relays is under the
--On Wednesday, 17 January, 2007 12:12 -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the second-to-last sentence refer to an ASCII address,
or any address? The wording implies any address, but if
an address is non-ASCII, surely that is a good sign that
the owner of that address
--On Wednesday, 17 January, 2007 12:25 -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(This could also be mentioned in the smtpext document.)
I haven't seen that possibility raised. I'm somewhat
skeptical that it would be an improvement (it makes the
delay before error reporting
It has been called to our attention that many people (including W3C!)
are using the obsolete (and undefined) URL:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/character-sets
If you go to ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/README,
you will find:
At one time the RFC Editor and
At 3:59 PM -0500 1/17/07, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 17 January, 2007 12:12 -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the second-to-last sentence refer to an ASCII address,
or any address? The wording implies any address, but if
an address is non-ASCII, surely
--On Wednesday, 17 January, 2007 14:31 -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
Replace:
Note that under this definition, it is not possible to
tell from
the address that an email sender or recipient is an
i18mail user.
with:
Note that under
At 4:02 PM -0500 1/17/07, John C Klensin wrote:
In any event, I'd recommend/request that you specify
text and where it should go.
I'm thinking a brief mention in the Framework document, with more
discussion in the SMTP extension document, and maybe a mention in the
downgrade document.
At 5:40 PM -0500 1/17/07, John C Klensin wrote:
Hmm. Because of my concern that some of the non-ASCII
addresses we will see floating around will result from guessing,
how about
... (A non-ASCII address implies a belief that the...
if you can live with that, and no one else objects
At 6:32 PM +0100 1/16/07, Frank Ellermann wrote:
How about s/HTTP/HTTP or better HTTPS/ somewhere in 4 ?
I don't think HTTPS is a sufficiently different protocol from HTTP to
warrant making any distinction for the purposes of Section 4.
s/exist a large number/exists a large number/ in
Randall Gellens wrote:
At 3:59 PM -0500 1/17/07, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 17 January, 2007 12:12 -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the second-to-last sentence refer to an ASCII address,
or any address? The wording implies any address, but if
an
At 9:53 AM +0900 1/18/07, Yangwoo Ko wrote:
How about:
Replace:
Note that under this definition, it is not possible to tell from
the address that an email sender or recipient is an i18mail user.
with:
Note that under this definition, it is not possible to tell from
- Original Message -
From: Randall Gellens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [EAI] Last Call: draft-ietf-eai-framework (Overview and
On Wednesday, January 17, 2007 04:31:37 PM -0800 Randall Gellens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
s/exist a large number/exists a large number/ in 8 (?)
I think you're right, but it sounds funny to my ear, so I'd prefer there
are a large number.
This is getting into the realm of trivial
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Formal Notation for Robust Header Compression (ROHC-FN) '
draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation-13.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Robust Header Compression Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Magnus
The IESG has received a request from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime)
to consider the following document:
- 'ESS Update: Adding CertID Algorithm Agility '
draft-ietf-smime-escertid-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
The social event for IETF 68 has been arranged by NeuStar at the Zofin
Palace in Prague. To find out more on this event and to sign up, please go
to: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/68-social.html
Only 60 days until Prague!
Online registration for the IETF meeting is at:
29 matches
Mail list logo
