I guess "routable" in mif mostly talking about there exist at least
two routing entry,(it doesn't matter whether it is the default router)
and both of them support one specific destination.
In that case, at least one routing entry will not work, it means not routable.
-Hui
2009/4/15 Giyeong Son :
Hi, Ted,
Excuse me for my late comment, I try to catch this thread.
For the case of the device has two interfaces which originate query.
Your suggestion looks quite interesting: try every plausible way.
I guess this is interesting topic in MIF future work.
And you talked about Stuart Cheshire des
Hi, Giyeong,
At least those are not in the current charter scope.
but Ted gave a one potential solution on one problem.
Regarding to Money et al, I think IETF is not going to talk about it.
which is more operational recommendation. Operation could recommend
the benchmark to let the user to select
How elegant a comment!
A very good example of "ability to participate constructively in the
consensus building process".
My father is a dedicated old sick academic (Maths) who joined the IETF and
then ISOC to help in his capacity of informed elder. He believed, like Mr.
Steve Crocker and may be s
It would be very much appreciated if someone could explain this
"resignation" business that recently spilled over into the IETF
discussion list.
Where did all of this start?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i
At 13:09 19-04-2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It would be very much appreciated if someone could explain this
"resignation" business that recently spilled over into the IETF
discussion list.
Where did all of this start?
This started in the IDNAbis WG. The WG Chair sent a message to a
part
I assume that the relevant procedures were applied, etc. Is there any
action that is warranted in other domains, or should this be left to
brew in your particular teakettle?
On Apr 19, 2009, at 4:56 PM, SM wrote:
At 13:09 19-04-2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It would be very much apprec
On 19 apr 2009, at 22:56, SM wrote:
Where did all of this start?
This started in the IDNAbis WG. The WG Chair sent a message to a
participant warning him that his posting rights may be removed [1].
Another participant was also warned [2]. The WG Chair then removed
posting privileges f
At 11:45 PM +0200 4/19/09, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>I gather that this has something to do with French capitals.
Only to small extent; it is much more about personalities.
This will probably come up during IETF Last Call; maybe postpone the fun until
then, or if you're really interested, joi
Actually its was over the mapping of the character Arabic TATWEEL, which
they objected. They refused to cease discussion on ML-DNS when it is pointed
out to them it is out of scope.
Their behavior, their language and method of argument leads many of us in
IDNAbis as well as participants in LTRU th
To amplify -
The announcement below indicated that 2 Statements of Work had been
changed.
The change to the RFC Publisher SOW was to section A.4.(i) which was
deleted.
Deleted (i) capacity of 50,000 messages per hour, recipient side.
It was deleted because the requirement was too high.
> James Seng wrote:
> Their behavior, their language and method of argument leads
> many of us in IDNAbis as well as participants in LTRU that
> they are a sock puppet of JFC.
There is no room for interpretation in this matter. They are. Although I
do not represent the French IETF community, their
12 matches
Mail list logo
