Howdy,
I said I would shut up, but I missed one question from Cullen, which was:
> This conversation constantly confuses the issue of must implement vs must
> deploy. Which one are you objecting to here.
Answer: I am objecting to there not *being* a distinction between must
implement vs. must dep
If this is true it make me wonder why does the IETF care about the
affiliation of WG chairs and ADs
Roni Even
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:17 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Public musing on the nature of IETF
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 04:12 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> Howdy,
> I said I would shut up, but I missed one question from Cullen, which was:
> > This conversation constantly confuses the issue of must implement vs must
> > deploy. Which one are you objecting to here.
>
> Answer: I am objecting to
Lets not forget what this specification was attempting to solve, which has
been the well known boot strap problem with SIP-CUA's we have collectively
ignored since the creation of SIP, especially those that might use (dare I
say it) phone numbers. The model here is to make such things as SIP CUA's
That was what I had in mind when I started this thread or maybe
configuration options for push of new WG drafts.
No browser including Safari displays ASCII text well and that has been my
ultimate objection. It drives me nuts that I have to print out all new
drafts to actually read them ( sorry HP
On 04/08/2010 07:47 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> That was what I had in mind when I started this thread or maybe
> configuration options for push of new WG drafts.
>
> No browser including Safari displays ASCII text well and that has been my
> ultimate objection.
I've got to really question wh
For RFCs and I-Ds, I use tools.ietf.org/html/rfc and
tools.ietf.org/html/draft-. An unsung feature of that tool is that
it both displays AND *prints properly*, using CSS to control pagination.
(It's a workaround for what you're complaining about, but it works.)
Tony Hansen
t...
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:45:01PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
> Title : DNS Transport
> Author(s) : G. Barwood
> Filename: draft-barwood-dnsext-dns-transport
Security-wise it'd be better to have the initial part of the protocol
work like this:
C->S: here's a client_nonce, gimme a token
S:C: here's your token
Nonces should be at least 64 bits. server_key_id serves as an
expiration time as well, but if desired an explicit expiration can be
added.
It is a useful fiction, but a fiction nonetheless.
If you work for a public company there is an enormous amount of
process involved when someone speaks for it. Even more so in the case
of government employees. You really do not want to have to go through
that process in order to suggest rewording
At 3:59 PM -0500 4/7/10, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>Where is this being discussed?
The DNSEXT WG.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:rich...@shockey.us]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:34 AM
>
> Lets not forget what this specification was attempting to solve, which has
> been the well known boot strap problem with SIP-CUA's we have collectively
> ignored since t
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Roni Even wrote:
> If this is true it make me wonder why does the IETF care about the
> affiliation of WG chairs and ADs
>
> Roni Even
>
The reason traditionally given that IETF participants in general give their
affiliation is for purposes of individual identifi
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:37 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
>
> Well, one could argue that a provider could cause the returned SIP url
> for the change notice subscription to be one for which there is no
> routing
Well if you are over 55 with bifocals, like me, you might have a issue. Which
is why tablet readers really are a boon.
On 04/08/2010 07:47 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> That was what I had in mind when I started this thread or maybe
> configuration options for push of new WG drafts.
>
> No brow
True.. but I don't think anyone realized when we began the SIP Connect 1.1
process and MARTINI that what is a simple business issue "I just want to
plug in foo and it works." would turn into a total philosophical debate of
the SIP registration process.
This is why members of our Board insisted th
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:15 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:37 AM
> > To: Hadriel Kaplan
> >
> > Well, one could argue that a provider could cause the returned SIP url
> > for t
On 2010-04-09 07:08, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Roni Even wrote:
>
>> If this is true it make me wonder why does the IETF care about the
>> affiliation of WG chairs and ADs
>>
>> Roni Even
>>
>
> The reason traditionally given that IETF participants in general give
From my perspective...
We really want to think of IETF participants as individuals. As Brian says, it
is a useful fiction, which allows all sorts of things to be bypassed. I would
be truly disappointed if someone I was collaborating with on a draft or was
working on a working group with me fund
Hi Fred,
I¹m not sure whether this (admittedly selective) quote would be fair to your
hypothetical collaborators:
On 4.8.2010 16:02 , "Fred Baker" wrote:
> [...] I would be truly disappointed if someone I was collaborating with on a
> draft or was working on a working group with me fundamentally
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:51 PM
>
> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:15 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > Right, but the since that would make it an "unknown validity" config,
> > and the requirements do not mandate a
Total of 139 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 9 00:53:02 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
12.23% | 17 | 11.24% | 106189 | hkap...@acmepacket.com
8.63% | 12 | 10.79% | 102020 | xmlsc...@g
On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi Fred,
Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there
were one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and
damage my relationship with my new employer during the first days on
the job?
Yep. If you did,
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
> Hi Fred,
>>
>
> Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there were
>> one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and damage my
>> relationship with my n
Since you guys are affecting my top-of-the-list status for the weekly posting
summary, I'm gonna have to jump in... :)
We can all claim our environment doesn't change our views, but that's hard to
reconcile with human behavior research.
Regardless, I think even you'd agree that one's views on
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:21 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
We can all claim our environment doesn’t change our views, but
that’s hard to reconcile with human behavior research.
Regardless, I think even you’d agree that one’s views on technical
issues can easily change if, for example, one were to
26 matches
Mail list logo
