On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:56 PM, SM wrote:
Hello,
A proposal was posted at
http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFC-Editor-Model.html about a
new structure for the RFC Editor. I read about the Internet
Standards Process and couldn't find the answer to a question.
Quoting Section 4.2.3 of RFC 26
Hi All,
Can any one tell me whether the extention marker will be encoded for the
below structure or not.
SAEBearerToBeSetupItemCtxtSUReqIEs S1AP-PROTOCOL-IES ::= {
{ ID id-SAEBearerToBeSetupItemCtxtSUReq CRITICALITY reject TYPE
SAEBearerToBeSetupItemCtxtSUReq PRESENCE
On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:06 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Please reserve Last Calls for situations in which community
> input or demonstrations of community consensus are actually
> needed.
Perhaps an announcement specifically calling out the approval of the
errata would have been better. I was t
- Original Message -
From: "SM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:56 PM
Subject: The RFC Editor and the Internet Standards Process
> Hello,
>
> A proposal was posted at
> http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFC-Editor-Model.html abo
This is an argument opposing the proposal to have the IETF's IESG make
draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 a Proposed Standard (i.e. RFC).
Sieve is widely used for email processing; it competes with procmail and
other rules-processing systems.
My reason for opposing -07 and drafting and support
Hi,
On 2008-09-09 01:28 Ray Pelletier said the following:
> All
>
> The redline of the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents dated
> 9-8-08 has been uploaded to http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
> in doc, pdf and rtf formats.
To see what changes would be needed in 'id
