--On Monday, June 23, 2008 07:41:27 PM -0700 Bernard Aboba
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Russ Housley said:
"I agree with this principle. In fact, I think that the IESG has taken
many steps over the last four or more years to reduce the
nearly-end-of-process surprises. Obviously, you do not th
The IAOC is pleased to announce Stockholm as the site for IETF 75 from
26 - 31 July 2009. Sweden will hold the European Union presidency at
that time. The IETF last met in the city in 1995 at IETF 33. The meeting
will be held at the City Conference Centre
[http://www.stoccc.se/index.aspx?langua
Bernard:
Many of the IESG activities are listed in John's appeal. The DISCUSS
Criteria document is probably the biggest step that was taken. ADs
routine challenge each other to stay within those guidelines.
At the IESG Retreat we had a discussion on this topic. It is very
hard to measure.
> We have a way to count DISCUSS positions, but we do not have a way to
> figure out what percentage of them are perceived as "late surprises"
> by the community. So, while we are taking action in an attempt to
> make things better, we do not have a way to measure our success or
> failure bey
I think I'm essentially agreeing with Eric Rescorla here, but perhaps
phrasing it differently may help.
On Sat Jun 21 14:31:03 2008, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
I had read 2119 to mean that a MUST was unconditional
- do this or be non-complaint.
That's a reasonable assessment, given RFC 2119.
On 23 Jun 2008, at 06:19, Dave Cridland wrote:
A final point is that actually phrasing it as "MUST X or Y" is
problematic since English lacks the possibility of parenthesis for
precendence - hence a stronger binding, such as MUST X unless Y, is
preferable.
Preferable to me would be to av
Hi All,
I have a confusion over the operations that can be performed on Read-only
objects belonging to a table.
A read-only object implies we cannot change the value of the object for that
instance.
Suppose we have a table in which some objects are read-only, and at least
one columnar
Futemma-san,
The proposed new version of the draft looks ok to me - it has dealt
with all of the concerns in the Gen-ART review. I have one comment
on the changes.
The second paragraph of Section 8 now recommends clearing the
saved mh_id (and I would think also the saved header) if the
decoder d
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 03:26:56PM +0530,
Aditya JAIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 161 lines which said:
> I have a confusion over the operations that can be performed on Read-only
> objects belonging to a table.
It is a shame that the IETF does not have a "SQL extensions" Working
Gr
Hi -
> From: "Aditya JAIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:56 AM
> Subject: Operation permissions on Read-Only objects in a table
...
> Suppose we have a table in which some objects are read-only, and at least
> one columnar object which has MAX- ACCESS = read-create. D
Bernard:
The data is all public. Jari has done a very good job of extracting
the data from the I-D Tracker and making it accessible to
everyone. Of course, any requests for changes to additional graphs
need to go to Jari.
http://www.arkko.com/tools/admeasurements/stat/base.html
Russ
At 1
Dave Cridland wrote:
> A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)"
I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very good excuse
not doing X might do. One known very good excuse is Y."
OTOH for a MUST X I'd want no qualifiers, MUST means "an
attempt to do not X can cause havoc."
This
I'm sorry for the way that this discussion has gone. I joined the
discussion in order to let the whole community see both sides of the
disagreement. However, in an attempt to provide clarity and correct
inaccurate statements, the discussion turned into tit for tat. The
back-and-forth banter d
13 matches
Mail list logo
