On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> Rui,
Hi all,
> While a co-author of the draft proposing re-use of Y.1731 OAM for MPLS-TP,
> and quite understanding the reasoning behind reusing existing formats,
> I am puzzled by two of your statements.
>
> First, that Y.1731 CCMs "would ea
All,
comments as the document shepherd.
We have comments on the draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework in IETF
last call from Yoshinori Koike, Jonathan Sadler and Ruiquan Jing.
All are subscribed to IETF lists that were included in the working
group last calls.
1. There are comments for the same the
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 06:14:47PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
[...]
-- 1.2, last bullet:
What is the referent for "this"? Is there perhaps a missing word(s), or
maybe this paragraph belongs with the pre
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:22:25PM -0500, Ben Campbell wrote:
-- 2nd paragraph: " ...increase the iteration count over time."
Can you elaborate on how this helps, and possibly offer guidance on
how implementations should use it?
Good point. With SCRAM as sp
Hello Yaakov,
1. [YS] One of the major problems with Y.1731 is the lack of a 100 packet per
second
rate, forcing the use of 300 packets per second
[RC] I don't understand your 1st claim. Would you be so kind as to detail it to
me a bit? In Y.1731,
7.1.1 CCM (with ETH-CC info
Hi.
Some comments about the two possible dispute resolution models
-- appeals to the IAB with binding effect or appeals to the IAB
with only advisory effect on the RSE and ISE --that I had made
in an IAB context never made it onto the list, resulting in Jari
being surprised (for which I apologize)
John:
Speaking pragmatically, I believe that creating a binding
inter-stream appeal process probably requires reopening both
4846 and 4844 and, given many of the comments on the IETF list
about the previous drafts, would lead to our having to recycle
the discussion of the appropriateness of the
At 04:07 AM 10/7/2009, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>(Personal opinion)
>
>>On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
>>>While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal
>>>implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating
>>>China unfairly in this disc
2009/10/9 Michael StJohns
> So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not
> holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due
> diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too
> high or too disjoint from the normal set
In propaganda, your statement would probably be considered a black and white
fallacy. In symbolic logic, it would just be a fallacy.
For your statement to be always true, the first clause would have to read
"Since the IETF ONLY discusses how to make the Internet better and nothing
else" and
I think there is general agreement that no "normal" IETF topic should
have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can
argue about the finer details of what "normal" implies and we
certainly need to establish that such speech would not get us in
trouble.
All that is happening
At 09:55 PM 10/8/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>I think there is general agreement that no "normal" IETF topic should
>have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can
>argue about the finer details of what "normal" implies and we
>certainly need to establish that such speech would
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> To rephrase in a way that you may not agree.
>
> "We certainly need to establish that the environment of the site,
> host or country would not cause us or tend to cause us to modify our
> behavior away from that common to normal IETF meetings."
>
Total of 76 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 9 00:53:02 EDT 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
1.32% |1 | 26.65% | 194554 | koike.yoshin...@lab.ntt.co.jp
7.89% |6 | 8.27% |60402 | flu.
14 matches
Mail list logo
