SM wrote:
At 01:56 07-11-2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
What are these schemes? What is the category under which it is
perceived that the im: scheme and the pres: scheme are the same? Again,
according to RFC 2779, RFC 3859, and RFC 3860, these are separate and
distinct domains of
Hi,
I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based
IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :)
I'd noticed drafts appearing over the weekend rather than in a batch
batch as usual this evening. Must be welcomed by the RFC editors
too!
Cheers,
--
Dan,
Thanks for your review. I will address all your comments for in the next
version. However, I don't plan to have a new version before the
Transport Area directors have reviewed the doc (they asked for an
extended deadline)
Please quickly evaluate if you agree with the proposed changes.
Whilst the document contains some useful examples of how services might be
implemented it does not I believe represent the BCP for some services and
publishing this as BCP may not help interoperability.
For example the document describes the service Call Hold and indicates
that a=sendonly should
I don't particularly like the draft,
On the contrary, I think it is one of the best SIP BCP there are and it
has been updated and corrected over 13 versions and (too) many years.
It's high time to publish it as a BCP.
I suspect customers might start demanding it.
This will only help SIP
Hello,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like
I like this document.
I also think it will be needed to point out that automatic transition
mechanism are already allowing IPv6 traffic to be there, despite the slow
level of deployment in the last mile.
Regarding the ROI, it should be pointed out that the ROI may not be the
usual business case,
Hi.
A little more background/context that got me here.
My original thinking was to do something like what ICANN and the RIRs
have done, to bring awareness to the IPv4 situation and call for IPv6
deployment. I think the IETF can say a bit more about why, and the
threats to the internet
+1
Thanks!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-Original Message-
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:53 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: New web-based submission tool
Hi,
I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web
Tim Chown wrote:
I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based
IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :)
+10
Easy to use, and astonishingly quick release for public access to each new
document.
Definite home run.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:53:37AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based
IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :)
+10
Easy to use, and astonishingly quick release for public access to
Hello,
A statement about IP addressable mobile nodes may be useful ?
(since we expect billions of them).
Regards,
pars
On Nov 12, 2007 5:30 PM, Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
A little more background/context that got me here.
My original thinking was to do something like what
From: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Especially since there are still some going around saying IPv6 is not
needed. IPv6 is still not done, so don't deploy yet, etc.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but for my part I'm not saying IPv4
is fine, nor am I saying the example
On 12 nov 2007, at 19:14, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm saying there is a problem, but IPv6 isn't the solution.
Assuming that we mostly agree on the problem, what is the solution
then, if not IPv6?
IPv6 is not perfect, but between availability and scalability to
levels required for the
+1
I had some initial difficulty with the tool's inability to properly
extract the creation date, but eventually came up with a format it
accepted.
Overall, very slick.
Janet
Eric Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/12/2007 11:32:33 AM:
+1
Thanks!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A URN namespace for the Commission for the Management and
Application of Geoscience Information (CGI) '
draft-sjdcox-cgi-urn-00.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the European
Broadcasting Union (EBU) '
draft-evain-ebu-urn-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
Greetings,
The RFC Editor has transitioned to a new errata system, which has
been updated to include all reports from the pending file
(ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/pending-errata/pending-errata.msgs).
This new system allows users to report errata online.
19 matches
Mail list logo
