Total of 76 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 23 00:53:01 EDT 2008
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.53% |8 | 9.85% |43769 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9.21% |7 | 9.88% |43930 | [EMAIL PROTECTED
On May 22, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Here is a concrete suggestion.
>>
>> We (for some definition of we) have the Internet Journal, which is
>> paper.
>> Publish a "Supplement of the Internet Journal," in paper, or on line,
>> which is
>>
>> - physically published 3 times a y
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 02:38 -0700 Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there are also books already published that are RFC
> compilations. they already have ISSN numbers.
No, almost certainly they have ISBN numbers, not ISSN numbers.
See one of my earlier notes.
There a
Tom Petch wrote:
> I note that this will also give us a URN (RFC3044).
What's the point of another URN in addition to urn:ietf:rfc:2648 ?
The ISSN idea is fine if this gets RFCs cataloged in places where
they are not available at the moment.
For the "info-handles" and DOI ideas I don't under
> Random Network Endpoint Technology (RNET)
>
>
> The following changes need be made to the IP Version 6 Protocol Logic, in
> routers, in order to
> impliment this technology:
>
> 1) encryption routines
> 2) recognization of RNET Route Requests
> 3) generation and recognization of RNET errors
>
I had some email outage and only saw this after today's IESG
Evaluation, sorry.
I didn't see consensus for a particular change as a result of this
conversation. There was widespread agreement that X-headers are
messy, but not what to say about them.
Lisa
On May 21, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Brian
>
>
>Here is a concrete suggestion.
>
>We (for some definition of we) have the Internet Journal, which is
>paper.
>Publish a "Supplement of the Internet Journal," in paper, or on line,
>which is
>
>- physically published 3 times a year
>- has all of the RFC's published since then
The average RFC
Your rewording looks good. One minor suggestion for REQ 15:
In cases where a network element fails, is so
overloaded that it cannot process messages, or cannot communicate due to a
network failure or network partition, it will not be able to provide explicit
indications of the nature of the f
Seems like a good idea to me.
On May 21, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> The IETF Trust is considering applying to the U.S. Library of Congress
> to obtain an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for the RFC
> Series and would like community input to inform its decision. The
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 11:00 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a concrete suggestion.
>
> We (for some definition of we) have the Internet Journal,
> which is paper.
> Publish a "Supplement of the Internet Journal," in paper, or
> on line, which is
>
> - phys
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 10:15 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve:
>
>> Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class
>> documents and hence not comparable to, say, "real"
>> standards documents. Getting traditional identifiers attached
>> to them might squelc
bb
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 07:18 -0400 Melinda Shore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/22/08 2:01 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe that getting each RFC cataloged individually would
>> not be possible using an ISSN, so we would need to employ
>> ISBNs.
>
> No,
David -
Many thanks for the review.
- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/
> 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 wait for direction from
Hi all:
In a former life I published a Theatre Technology newsletter; we got an
ISSN for it, as a result two libraries asked for copies of each issue so
that they could archive them. That was the only effect.
So, I agree with Melinda - it's worth getting an ISSN, and recognition
from the Library
> Two additional observations:
>
> (1) While we think of RFCs as online documents, their
> antecedents, and all of the early ones, were paper publications.
[elided]
> I suggest that the community would be better served, and the ISSN
> made more useful, if we treated RFCs as "authoritative paper,
>
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 11:00 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a concrete suggestion.
>
> We (for some definition of we) have the Internet Journal,
> which is paper.
> Publish a "Supplement of the Internet Journal," in paper, or
> on line, which is
>
> - phys
On May 22, 2008, at 10:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 10:15 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Steve:
>>
>>> Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class
>>> documents and hence not comparable to, say, "real"
>>> standards documents.
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 10:15 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve:
>
>> Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class
>> documents and hence not comparable to, say, "real"
>> standards documents. Getting traditional identifiers attached
>> to them might squelc
Steve:
> Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class
> documents and hence not comparable to, say, "real"
> standards documents. Getting traditional identifiers attached
> to them might squelch some of this nonsense.
I have the impression that we would be pioneering the use of an ISS
On May 22, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/22/08 8:51 AM, "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Indeed, another way of looking at this question is that deciding
>> to register an ISSN for the RFC series really does not preclude
>> anything else (including, were we so inclin
bb
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 09:12 -0400 Melinda Shore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the cataloging question is probably central to the
> question of whether or not to bother with an ISSN. I don't
> think an ISSN has any practical value other than that it
> increases the likelihood that
Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class documents
and hence not comparable to, say, "real" standards documents.
Getting traditional identifiers attached to them might squelch some
of this nonsense.
Steve
On May 22, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/22/08 8:51
On 5/22/08 8:51 AM, "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, another way of looking at this question is that deciding
> to register an ISSN for the RFC series really does not preclude
> anything else (including, were we so inclined, putting DOIs on
> each RFC) and we should therefore b
On May 22, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> On a side note: If we want something URN-like that actually has
> traction outside the IETF, DOIs seem like the right approach. See
> http://www.doi.org/
> Articles in our closest technical disciplines, namely those
> published by ACM an
bb
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 07:18 -0400 Melinda Shore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/22/08 2:01 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe that getting each RFC cataloged individually would
>> not be possible using an ISSN, so we would need to employ
>> ISBNs.
>
> No,
On a side note: If we want something URN-like that actually has
traction outside the IETF, DOIs seem like the right approach. See
http://www.doi.org/
Articles in our closest technical disciplines, namely those
published by ACM and IEEE, already have DOIs, both for journal and
conference a
On 5/22/08 2:01 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that getting each RFC cataloged individually would not
> be possible using an ISSN, so we would need to employ ISBNs.
No, not necessarily. A serial published as a serial
("The Bulletin of the Singapore Guppy Society") is
Yes, I think that this is an excellent idea and should be pursued.
I note that this will also give us a URN (RFC3044). Any thoughts on what the
URN might in future resolve to?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Ray Pelletier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF Discussion" ; "IAOC" <[EMAI
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 02:38 -0700 Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Two additional observations:
>>
>> (1) While we think of RFCs as online documents, their
>> antecedents, and all of the early ones, were paper
>> publications.
> [elided]
>> I suggest that the community would be
--On Wednesday, 21 May, 2008 23:07 -0700 Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> would the ISSN apply to the whole series?
By definition, yes.
john
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 13:06 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree with Melinda here. I can't remember ever seeing
>> anything like an ISBN or an ISSN used as a citation in an
>> academic paper.
>
> Correct, but I have seen a wide variety of ways to cite RFCs
> and
31 matches
Mail list logo
