--On Saturday, March 07, 2009 12:31 -0500 Richard M Stallman
wrote:
> So the answer to your question is that Experimental RFCs
> are different from Standards Track ones because, among
> other things, there is no implicit IETF recommendation of
> implementation and deployment of
- "Robert Moskowitz" wrote:
Very much a loss. Quite a colorful personality. I will never forget
his mike time at the Danver's IETF in his 'nam fatigues.
And neither will I (as the person he was flaming!). That said, I am
truly saddened by his passing. His wit was sharp and his heart was
al
At 14:02 07/03/2009, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
On 2009-03-04 16:33 Margaret Wasserman said the following:
> I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
> the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
> draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
>
> I d
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:49:54 -1000
David Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > I agree with Ned. The main purpose of the registry should be to
> > document what is out there, not to act as a gatekeeper. Even when
> > a protocol is not a full standard,
Hi,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
I agree with Ned. The main purpose of the registry should be to
document what is out there, not to act as a gatekeeper. Even when a
protocol is not a full standard, having a public documentation is
useful. Documentation enables filter
> > While I agree (and strongly so), there is lots of precedent for
> > the IESG rejecting parameter registrations because of distaste
> > for a particular extension, presumably in the hope that "no
> > registered value" will imply "the unpopular extension idea goes
> > away".
>
> There are indeed
> --On Friday, March 06, 2009 14:08 -0800 Kurt Zeilenga
> wrote:
> >...
> > Okay, so we're being overly anal here. Like we can control
> > the world of protocol extensions.
> Kurt,
> While I agree (and strongly so), there is lots of precedent for
> the IESG rejecting parameter registrations
Russ Housley wrote:
This is very sad news. Jim was a very strong supporter of the IETF and
IPv6.
Very much a loss. Quite a colorful personality. I will never forget his
mike time at the Danver's IETF in his 'nam fatigues.
When he wanted to make a point, he did not pull any punches. And the f
Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>
>> Giving to early implementers a guaranty that
>> their contributions will not be forgotten is a way to counterbalance
>> the time and effort spent in working on this contributions.
>
> Marc, I feel that it is
Ned Freed wrote:
>> Scott Lawrence wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:17 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back
running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a
new Considerations Section in future Intern
> Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:17 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> >> I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back
> >> running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a
> >> new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs
On Mar 3, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
Giving to early implementers a guaranty that
their contributions will not be forgotten is a way to counterbalance
the time and effort spent in working on this contributions.
Marc, I feel that it is well worth thanking anyone in the
ac
On Mar 7, 2009, at 12:21 PM, David Morris wrote:
I can't recall any examples of any document or source file where the
copyright was at the end. It certainly isn't common.
agree it is unusual and weird but much of resiprocate has them at the
end because some people had a hard time with the p
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time,
PLEASE:
- plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs)
- make the requirements precise and actually implementable
(remember: "must be on page 1" :-)
- giv
This seems like a really good idea from a usability perspective,
but I've not noticed any feed back from our official or unofficial legal
community.
My concern would be whether there is a legal requirement that the
copyright and other similar declarations be in the front of a document.
I'd ce
On 2009-03-04 16:33 Margaret Wasserman said the following:
> I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
> the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
> draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
>
> I don't believe that there are any legal impl
Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
What this draft ask for is to be mandatory to list in a specific
section the names, authors and sponsors of early implementations
available in source form. Everything that does not fall under the
definition can still be acknowledged as it is now (or not) in the
no
Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:17 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back
>> running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a
>> new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs:
>>
>> ht
Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:17 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back
>> running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a
>> new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs:
>>
>> ht
It's...sad that a lot of the men and women involved in making some of this
countries greatest technological leaps are passing. Many of the men and
women who put us on the moon are no longer alive. More and more of the men
and women who helped build the bedrock of what became modern computing
Scott Lawrence wrote:
...
This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it
will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be
happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just
don't worry about fixing the diff tools).
...
At this poin
21 matches
Mail list logo
