Thanks all.
Some trouble getting caches flushed all the way to China.
Adrian
I'm not sure where you started, but I find the proceedings at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/index.html
I go there directly from:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
The last url (accessed before
At 09:52 22-09-2008, Russ Housley wrote:
I'm not sure where you started, but I find the proceedings at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/index.html
I go there directly from:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
The last url (accessed before Monday, 22 September 2008 16:41:44 GMT
I'm not sure where you started, but I find the proceedings at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/index.html
I go there directly from:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
Russ
At 11:21 AM 9/22/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
points to
ht
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:07:12 -0700 (PDT) The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received the attached text for a proposed IESG Statement:
> IESG Statement on the Usage of Assignable Codepoints in Specification
> Examples
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final
Thanks Spencer, comments in-line
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 14:16 -0500, ext Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 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 re
(I am not a subscriber to the ietf list and would appreciate copies of
replies.)
SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Section 3.4 of this I-D states that:
>
> "Contrary to [RFC2822], which implies that the mailbox or mailboxes in
>the From header field should be that of the poster or posters, a
Dear all,
Because dataLinkFrameSize and dataLinkFrameSection have been removed,
the editor renumbered all the I.E. assignments.
That could generate some problems for existing implementations, if any.
However, I can live with that.
However, where there is a bigger problem is that IANA is working
Larry,
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > Which SDOs that you participate in want to see other SDOs publishing
> > *incompatible* versions of their protocols?
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Of course none of the SDOs that I work with want to see incompatible
> versions. But this turns the issue on its head. Open sour
Paul Hoffman writes ("RE: FW: IETF copying conditions"):
> Which SDOs that you participate in want to see other SDOs publishing
> *incompatible* versions of their protocols?
The Debian project has published a small (by IETF standards) but
significant body of work specifying the interoperation and
At 03:01 22-09-2008, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
As I stated in response to John's question. No, the spam problem for
us contributors are one of the prices to contribute to IETF unfortunately.
Item (1) takes us one step closer to discouraging the publication of
email addresses instead of seeing i
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
points to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html
points back to
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
Huh?
Am I missing something?
Adrian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
htt
Magnus Westerlund wrote:
From
my point of view the long usage and the lack of actual reported issues
and minimal impact a change would have on the situation is why I cleared
when I finally was engaged in any discussion on the issue.
Magnus,
Offhand, it would seem as if these ought to
This message is an update for the community on the IETF Trustee's
progress towards adopting a policy on "Legal Provisions for IETF
Documents", pursuant to the last two remaining I-Ds from the IPR WG.
The Trustees met via telechat last Thursday. We reviewed the draft
policy (as posted to the Trus
I think that this statement is reasonably clear, and I support it.
To be pedantic, a statement that an RFC author's contact information
is not an example could be added.
Regards
Marshall
On Sep 18, 2008, at 1:07 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received the attached text for a proposed IE
John,
I might be to much a protocol designer to be a good writer of rule
documents. I will take your, Spencer's and Dave's input when
reformulating the note.
Cheers
Magnus
John C Klensin skrev:
--On Monday, 22 September, 2008 11:40 +0200 Magnus Westerlund
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi J
Doug Ewell skrev:
Magnus Westerlund wrote:
I think any one of us would be might irritated to learn that the
suddenly started receive spam in large quantities because someone
published their address in example in an internet draft or RFC.
and later:
And I would be kind of annoyed if anyone
Magnus Westerlund wrote:
I have tried to write a statement that allows the IESG to use common
sense. However, the problem I have seen several times when the IESG
tries to use common sense in issues that comes up regularly is that some
people complains about not knowing about this and that we
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
While not even dreaming of trying to speak for John, what I understood
his point to be was that our process is, and needs to be, more than a
set of rules.
...
On this particular topic, I've been really dismayed that we've gotten so
far into the weeds on what was obviou
Magnus Westerlund wrote:
I think any one of us would be might irritated to learn that the
suddenly started receive spam in large quantities because someone
published their address in example in an internet draft or RFC.
and later:
And I would be kind of annoyed if anyone of you decided to p
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-avt
Spencer Dawkins skrev:
Hi, Magnus,
While not even dreaming of trying to speak for John, what I understood
his point to be was that our process is, and needs to be, more than a
set of rules.
You guys are going to get complaints (and you know that better than I
do). But you're going to get co
--On Monday, 22 September, 2008 11:40 +0200 Magnus Westerlund
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I have tried to write a statement that allows the IESG to use
> common sense. However, the problem I have seen several times
> when the IESG tries to use common sense in issues that comes
> u
Hi, Magnus,
While not even dreaming of trying to speak for John, what I understood his
point to be was that our process is, and needs to be, more than a set of
rules.
You guys are going to get complaints (and you know that better than I do).
But you're going to get complaints whether there i
SM skrev:
1) Spam: apparently valid email addresses in an RFC are widely believed
to have been harvested and included in Spam lists. The domain may receive
spam at mailboxes other than the one used in the example email address, if
the domain name is used in common name or brute force attacks.
Hi John,
I have tried to write a statement that allows the IESG to use common
sense. However, the problem I have seen several times when the IESG
tries to use common sense in issues that comes up regularly is that some
people complains about not knowing about this and that we can't enforce
it
John C Klensin wrote:
> I continue to believe that the IESG could do something much easier
> and much more effective by issuing, not a collection of new rules,
> but a simple statement requiring that people either use
> suitably-reserved and dedicated identifiers or that they explain,
> explicitly
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 04:28:43PM +0530,
Karthik Balaguru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 44 lines which said:
> What are the major and minor problems with ROHC v1 ?
> Can anyone give me a link that explains the problems with ROHC v1 ?
[Warning: I'm not an expert in ROHC.]
May be star
27 matches
Mail list logo
