On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:44:02PM -0400,
The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'ASCII Escaping of Unicode Characters '
> as a BCP
For those unfamilia
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 10:16 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third
> LastCall:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
>
> [...] Everyone
> expects IETF to take reasonable steps, cons
Hi,
I do not think there is consensus that what you want is what the IETF
wants.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:46 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: A pr
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> A typical example is RFC 4646 for its registry. (4646bis, under
> work, will no longer need it.)
s/will/might/ until the Chairs dare claim "rough consensus"...
> So, no need for lengthy flames :-)
...I kept it short ;-) For another example see the EAI DSN draft.
>
Different era.
Today we have had several companies burnes for up to half a billion dollars
with piffle patents.
When tcpip was being written the patent office had not become a profit center,
the seven nos were still an issue.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Origi
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Brian Carpenter wrote:
> > ... so that the
> > goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic.
>...
> But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are
> prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and
I have a terminological objection to this draft, mainly in section 2. I have
other comments regarding section 2 I'll mention.
First, terminology: the heading for section 2 has "...Table Position...", and
the body refers to "code point position in the table". While the term "code
table" could ha
