--On Wednesday, August 19, 2009 22:26 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
...
However, speaking personally, for some reason I'm not too
enthusiastic about writing charters in drafts. Perhaps this is
just resistance to a change, but I have found it personally
easy to deal with the
John was actually channeling me accurately in his note - and I wanted to
agree that what Jari proposed (when sending charter proposals out for
review) is worth doing, and is almost certainly solving a different problem
than tracking different versions of charters - so please consider what Jari
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:18:41AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
think Spencer and I were focused on a slightly earlier part of
the process, in which multiple drafts were circulating around in
the pre-BOF and immediate post-BOF stages. Those are drafts
that people closely involved with the
IAOC,
I appreciate the effort to bring the minutes up to date and note
that there are now documents posted as minutes through 2 and 16
July.
However, inspection of those documents shows some things that
seem worth calling to your, and the community's, attention.
The purpose of posting minutes
I am aware that the last call period has ended, but maybe this comment
will aid IESG processing of the document.
After having talked to the SFLC and the FSF about the patent threat on
this document, I no longer oppose publication of the tls-extractor
document on the standards track. It appears
At 3:17 PM -0400 8/19/09, Vint Cerf wrote:
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
Fully agree. But I think you misread Thomas' message. He asked for clarity on
Thomas,
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
The notion of including a non-normative mapping document was very late
in the process and the charter just
The thread so far has gotten difficult to follow, so I'm going to try
to reset the conversation. I think we have been disagreeing in 2 areas.
The first is how much the document should say about how much semantic
knowledge of sieve is expected for editors. On rereading the thread, I
think
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Total of 80 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 21 00:53:02 EDT 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.75% |7 | 9.76% |55225 | t...@americafree.tv
7.50% |6 | 8.66% |48971 |
On http://www.ietf.org/glossary.html there are very few terms.
Is there a way to add most used acronyms?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Use of SRV records for locating email services '
draft-daboo-srv-email-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
The IESG has received a request from the Congestion and Pre-Congestion
Notification WG (pcn) to consider the following document:
- 'Baseline Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information '
draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation '
draft-iana-ipv4-examples-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5642
Title: Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for
OSPF
Author: S. Venkata, S. Harwani,
C. Pignataro, D. McPherson
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5624
Title: Quality of Service Parameters for
Usage with Diameter
Author: J. Korhonen, Ed.,
H. Tschofenig,
E. Davies
16 matches
Mail list logo
