RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions forDistributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

At 6:32 PM -0800 2/20/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >Without forcing me to read all the referenced documents, is there an easy >way to determine whether any IPR disclosures relating to these documents >need to be correlated and disclosed? > >/Larry Rosen > Is the IPR search page, linked off of the IET

RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions forDistributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Without forcing me to read all the referenced documents, is there an easy way to determine whether any IPR disclosures relating to these documents need to be correlated and disclosed? /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, Feb

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: Hi, RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) in an incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes Appendix. (see

Comment on draft-wilde-text-fragment-06.txt

The discussion about "least astonishment" led me to review this document and I have to agree that it raises some issues of "astonishment." It seems to me that the draft unnecessarily joins two separate concepts: 1 - Specifying a portion of a document, and 2 - Providing an identity check on t

Re: Protest: Complexity running rampant

At 9:49 AM -0500 2/19/07, John C Klensin wrote: > >For the record, I would have no problems with Informational or Experimental >publication of this collection -- it is the proposed decision to standardize >that bothers me. When I first discussed publication of this with the IESG, I pointed out t

Re: [PCN] Re: WG Review: Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification(pcn)

On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: I assume that you also have no objection on using the DSCP fields for this purpose. actually, I do, at least in some ways that they might be used. The AF service (RFC 2597) is specifically designed to do as you say; EF isn't. settin

Re: [PCN] Re: WG Review: Congestion and Pre-CongestionNotification(pcn)

FWIW, Fred's retelling of the trail of tears for ICMP Source Quench (as the concept moved from "please do this" to "please don't do this") is also useful, but From a "building a service" perspective, an optional communication is one I can't rely on receiving, which means that I also have to

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-wilde-text-fragment-06

Hi, Martin, Thanks for the quick response. Now I can remember what I was thinking when I wrote the review... I deleted everything that we're already good on. Rest is inline. Spencer 2.5. Fragment Identifier Robustness Hash sums may specify the character encoding that has been used when

Re: [PCN] Re: WG Review: Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification(pcn)

On Feb 20, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: It seems that are assuming the transport needs to happen in the packet itself. While this is a possible approach, I don't see that it needs to be the only one. For example, a mechanism where the mutually trusting network components would h

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-wilde-text-fragment-06

Hello Spencer, Many thanks for your comments. At 05:57 07/02/20, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > >Please resolve these

RE: [PCN] Re: WG Review: Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification(pcn)

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [logical components being:] encoding and transport along forward path from marker to egress, metering of congestion information at the egress, and transport of congestion information back to the controlling ingress. I'd like to see it explicitly sta

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-wilde-text-fragment-06

on 2007-02-19 21:57 Spencer Dawkins said the following: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). ... > 3. Fragment Identification Syntax > >Th