Phillip,
This is the main change from the US. In the US it is entirely
practical to carry only plastic and no cash at all.
This is mostly right, but maybe not universally true. Imagine my
surprise when I walked to a cab at LAX and asked to be taken to the
Anaheim hotel. First, I had apparent
So I agree with Hadriel that we want the document to be very clear on what code
the implementors need to write but I'm not exactly seeing the confusion.
Perhaps I need to go reread the doc from that point of view.
However,I did want to comment on the use cases for this. There are many service
> -Original Message-
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:flu...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:53 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
>
> However,I did want to comment on the use cases for this. There are many
> service providers that think it is important to be able to push a new
> confi
Cullen,
I'm sure there are some deployments where polling would be fine but there
are lots that don't find this acceptable.
The Internet alaredy has quite a bit of experience with renewal of parameters,
via DHCP and the DNS.
What is the justification that mandates a more complex model tha
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:24 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Cullen,
>
> > I'm sure there are some deployments where polling would be fine but there
> > are lots that don't find this acceptable.
>
>
> The Internet alaredy has quite a bit of experience with renewal of
> parameters,
> via DHCP and
> Display RFCs?
>
> Doesn't this new toy of yours already have a browser?
I was idly thinking of this a few days ago. An app for the iPad that
will sync across RFCs and I-Ds for offline viewing would be quite
useful.
Rob
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf
On Apr 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:flu...@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:53 AM
> > To: Hadriel Kaplan
> >
> > However,I did want to comment on the use cases for this. There are many
> > service
> -Original Message-
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:flu...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 12:56 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
>
> > No one has any empirical evidence or experience with what this thing
> > will do to large subscriber domains. (and by large I mean multiple
> > milli
Much of what makes the IETF work is how it is very different from other
standards bodies (such as IEEE, ANSI, ISO, NIST, ITU, etc etc).
One key difference is that "groups" do not join the IETF.
Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a "members" of the IETF. No agency
of the US government, or of
On 4/6/2010 9:55 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
This conversation constantly confuses the issue of must implement vs must
deploy. Which one are you objecting to here.
Perhaps you have some data to cite about the historical, real-world difference
between these?
In a world of legitimately open
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:16:41AM -0700, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Only individual people can be "members" of the IETF.
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro,
On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
Right.
Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf
On 2010-04-06 13:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
There are exactly 2003 members of the IETF! ;)
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMembers=&gid=83669
Simon
--
NAT64/DN
>
> Right, but they're doing it for reg-events and presence, after the
> Registration. During an avalanche, for example, they're implicitly throttled
> by the effective registration rates. This config framework is reversing it,
> having subscriptions before the registrations. I'm not saying
I should solicit 7 more so we can have the round figure that is 2010. What a
coincidence!
Paul
--Original Message--
From: Simon Perreault
Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employmentstatus
Sent: Apr 6, 2010 20:58
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 13:39 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:flu...@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 12:56 PM
> > To: Hadriel Kaplan
> >
> > > No one has any empirical evidence or experience with what this thing
> > > will
On 6 Apr 2010, at 17:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Only individual people can be "members" of the IETF. And "membership" is
> mostly defined as "who shows up on the mailing list" and "who shows up at the
> meetings".
>
> There have been many cases in the history of the IETF where well known
> membe
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Much of what makes the IETF work is how it is very different from other
> standards bodies (such as IEEE, ANSI, ISO, NIST, ITU, etc etc).
>
> One key difference is that "groups" do not join the IETF.
>
That's part of it but IEEE, for example,
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 14:23, Sabahattin Gucukoglu
wrote:
> I don't see any meaningful relationship between
> employment status and IETF participation. That's all.
For some of us there is. I tend to be more active in IETF things
(this list, WGs, etc.) when I'm LOOKING for work!
-Dave
--
Dav
On 6 apr 2010, at 18:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a "members" of the IETF. No agency of
> the US government, or of any other government, is a "member" of the IETF. No
> university, non-profit, PIRG, PAC, or other "concerned citizens group", is a
> "member" o
On Apr 6, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 6 apr 2010, at 18:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a "members" of the IETF. No
agency of the US government, or of any other government, is a
"member" of the IETF. No university, non-profit, PIRG, PAC,
Perhaps that would stop all of these "LOOP MAIL DETECTED" messages I keep
getting back from kisa.or.kr every time I post to this (particular) email list.
Anyone else getting those?
-hadriel
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>
Sure, but vendors have already spent years working the reg-avalanche problem
out for subscribers.
One of my fears with this config framework is it's changing it, without a way
to undo/not-do the change.
-hadriel
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:h...@c
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Dean Willis wrote:
> Flip side: I could see the IETF requiring all participants use ietf.org email
> addresses hosted on ietf.org servers with ietf.org-issued
> authentication/signature certificates, and quite possibly (with some
> exceptions) restricted delivery to/from non
As a venue for discussion about possible revisions to the definition of
Uniform Resource Names (URNs), the IETF Applications Area has created a
new email list u...@ietf.org, to which you can subscribe as follows:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
mailto:urn-requ...@ietf.org?body=subscribe
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:10 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Review of: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config
Thanks for taking the time to read this, Dave.
> This appears to be an Individual Submission.
For IETF process purposes that is correct. As the document says, it is
the product of a d
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:10 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
>
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 13:39 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> This draft says nothing at all about the ordering of the change notice
> subscription vs
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-netmod
> > I do have some problem with making the notification some kind of side
> > effect of the 'normal' registration. REGISTER exists to map an AOR to
> > one or more Contacts. The Configuration Service needs to be able to
> > address the change notice (whatever method carries it) to a specific UA,
> Considering that, it wouldn't be the worst idea to have everyone post mailing
> list messages from an employee email address.
Given the stiff competition for "worst idea", I'd agree, but it's a truly
terrible idea nonetheless. The appallingly low quality of the email systems
used by many corpora
It would be even better if the Web in general could support this use case.
The HTML5 folks are designing a client-side data store API, but alas it's not
connected to the HTTP caching model, so they're effectively making Web authors
rewrite their sties with JS APIs to make them usable offline --
On 2010-04-07 05:57, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
>> people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
>
> Right.
Or "contributors" when they contribute and therefo
On 06.04.2010 23:48, Mark Nottingham wrote:
It would be even better if the Web in general could support this use case.
The HTML5 folks are designing a client-side data store API, but alas it's not
connected to the HTTP caching model, so they're effectively making Web authors
rewrite their stie
Hadriel Kaplan said:
"Howdy,
This may not be within the normal rules of etiquette, but I will re-iterate
my issues with this draft which I raised when it was discussed in RAI.
1) The mechanism does not scale, for large SSP's. (is this only meant for
small deployments?)
Expecting every U
It's not an iPad app, but you can see screenshots of the (not App Store
released) IETF 77 iPhone app I threw together the week before Anaheim:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dhask/sets/72157623658352428/
I don't have an iPad ("Late April" in Australia), but I don't think it would be
terribly comp
On 4/6/2010 10:59 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Avalanche (restart) has its own set of problems - including overwhelming
either the HTTP server, SSP or registrar. (In a draft, we've made
proposals how to address this in some cases, as long as the UA can
detect that it is likely part of an aval
On 4/6/2010 1:39 PM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:10 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
By title and Introductory text, the document specifies its scope as user agent
configuration by non-technical users. The actual contents of the specification
suggests a broader scope, also coveri
37 matches
Mail list logo
