At 06:23 04-02-2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Also in more mature markets, not all of the existing companies and
universities running their own mail servers will be eager to spend
$5000/year on a vouch. In addition, the
The cost for email certification starts at around $1200 (950 Euros) a year
>If the technology is deployed by 100% of the community providing
>professional email operations, both on the sending and the receiving
>sides, as Dave expects, ...
I'm not Dave, but I cannot imagine where you got the idea that he
expects the "community providing professional email operation" to
SM wrote:
At 06:55 04-02-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Macroeconomic analysis -- especially predictions about the directions
an economic process will develop towards -- is a poorly understood
topic of expertise, even among experts... as we are unfortunately
seeing demonstrated in the global econ
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Farrel"
To: "John C Klensin" ; "Tom.Petch" ;
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf (Reduced Backus-Naur
Form(RBNF) A Syntax Used in Various Protocol Specification toProposed Standard
> Thanks John
Ed Juskevicius wrote:
The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on some
proposed revisions to the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents" policy, based on comments received from the community in
the last two weeks. Please recall this work is being done to provide
a wo
--On Friday, February 06, 2009 13:55 +0100 "Tom.Petch"
wrote:
>...
> I think too that there is a third issue, of a better name than
> RBNF. John clearly showed that this I-D is not reduced.
> Historic? Deprecated? Limited_applicability? Variant?
> Simplified?
"simplified" has the same problem
John Levine wrote:
If some group wanted to build a closed pay-to-play mail system, they
could do it with the tools they already have, using SMTP AUTH or
STARTTLS with a private signing cert or VPNs or whatever. The reason
they don't is that it makes no sense, and a tiny tweak like VBR isn't
goin
A couple of issues with the motivating text:
> Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor
> desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative
> works of an IETF Contribution, or to limit its publication, one of
> the following notices must be included.
For cases
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected VBR
effect. (If that's meant as an apotropaic stance, I have no objection.
Otherwise,) I wonder why we shouldn't push VBR as hard as we can, if it can
stop spam.
Could you point out where anyone, anywhere has claimed that VBR
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
John Levine wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected VBR
effect.
What I don't understand is your certitude about specific impact.
There is a considerable difference between having a large effect -- which is
what any proponent of
Reading this, and reading it and reading it again, I think we are going
backwards more than is desirable where code is concerned.
I expect that for some years, the s.6.iii.c clause will be common ie no
derivative works outside the Standards process without obtaining an adequate
licence. The s.5.c
--On Friday, February 06, 2009 10:30 -0500 Thomas Narten
wrote:
> But for case iii), there are two "contributors" at issue. The
> one submitting the document, and possible pre-5378
> contributors who's text has been included in the document.
>...
> For case iii), it should remain clear that the
One comment, below:
On 2009-02-06 06:28 Ed Juskevicius said the following:
> The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on some
> proposed revisions to the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents"
> policy, based on comments received from the community in the last two
> week
Agreed. Good comments! Thank You.
Best Regards,
Ed J.
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
Sent: February 6, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Thomas Narten; Ed Juskevicius
Cc: Trustees; wgcha...@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge; ietf@ietf.org;
i...@iab.org; i...@ietf.org; r
John R. Levine wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why you minimize the expected
VBR effect. (If that's meant as an apotropaic stance, I have no
objection. Otherwise,) I wonder why we shouldn't push VBR as hard as
we can, if it can stop spam.
Could you point out where anyone, anywher
Alfred, I apologize for not having PDF versions of the last call documents
on the IETF Trust website before now. Thank you for noticing this problem.
Please be advised we have now resolved the issue. PDF versions of the
'marked-up' and the 'clean' version of the 2009-02-05 document are now
avail
"Tom.Petch" writes:
> Reading this, and reading it and reading it again, I think we are going
> backwards more than is desirable where code is concerned.
>
> I expect that for some years, the s.6.iii.c clause will be common ie no
> derivative works outside the Standards process without obtaining
At 02:47 06-02-2009, John Levine wrote:
I'm not Dave, but I cannot imagine where you got the idea that he
expects the "community providing professional email operation" to
deploy 100% of anything.
I'll quote the last part of the message from Dave (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/cur
On Feb 6, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
A couple of issues with the motivating text:
Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor
desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative
works of an IETF Contribution, or to limit its publication, one of
the
Ray,
> > NEW:
> >
> >iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
> >Contributor is unable (for whatever reason) to obtain the
> >necessary permissions to allow modifications of such Pre-5378
> >Material to be made outside the IETF Standards Process:
> The language su
On Feb 6, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
One comment, below:
On 2009-02-06 06:28 Ed Juskevicius said the following:
The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on some
proposed revisions to the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents"
policy, based on comme
On Feb 6, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Ray Pelletier wrote:
On Feb 6, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
One comment, below:
On 2009-02-06 06:28 Ed Juskevicius said the following:
The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on
some
p
Ray Pelletier writes:
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
>> One comment, below:
>>
>> On 2009-02-06 06:28 Ed Juskevicius said the following:
>>> The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on some
>>> proposed revisions to the "Legal Provisions Relating to IE
Going back to RFC 2205,
These rules are specified using Backus-Naur Form (BNF) augmented
with square brackets surrounding optional sub-sequences.
What do you think of BNFO, for "Backus-Naur Form with Options"?
or BNFB, for "Backus-Naur Form with Brackets"?
Tony Hansen
--On Friday, February 06, 2009 20:59 -0500 Tony Hansen
wrote:
> Going back to RFC 2205,
>
> These rules are specified using Backus-Naur Form (BNF)
> augmented with square brackets surrounding optional
> sub-sequences.
>
> What do you think of BNFO, for "Backus-Naur Form with Optio
25 matches
Mail list logo
