Thanks for the comments and the forward to r...@irtf.org.
Geographic was just an example; I left it intentionally vague for
discussion purposes.
It partially borrows from OSI's addressing but with the twist of full
IPv4 address support and the fact that there are at least 3 distinct
parts to
Unfortunately there isn't much new under the sun. This appears to be a
combination of geographic addressing (various sources, e.g. Steve
Deering and Tony Hain) and RFC1955. Geographic addressing has
deployability issues -- search for archives of those arguments. The
problem with mapping based on
I would like to propose the following concept for discussion. The idea
is to either extend IPv4 or create a new protocol that would work with
IPv4 in order to allow a backwards compatible, yet hierarchical
addressing model. The format is ruff and I wish others to evaluate its
feasibility.
The gene
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections for issues
that I think are closed:
On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:53 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
[...]
>>
>> -- section 3.2.8, "transitory" bullet: "When a node has received a
>> NOTIFY message, it
>> marks the signaling session as
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: d
Much of Europe is currently experiencing severe travel restrictions
resulting from a drifting ash cloud from a volcanic eruption at the
Eyjafjallajokull glacier in Iceland that are expected to last at least
throughout the coming weekend.
Consequently, we have decided to ***CANCEL*** the IETF HomeG
Hallo Xiangsong,
Thanks a lot for the detailed mail.
>> It seems there is firewall between host-X and host-Y, so the cross path
>> packets can not reach the destination?
There is no fire wall but two separate routers each carrying a path and these
routers are not connected as well.
>>1. to mark
In the IETF meta-discussions on the idea of discussing IPR are more liable to
become ratholes than the IPR discussion itself.
Even worse is the meta-meta discussion on whether to restrict ourselves to
using ASCII in the meta-discussion :)
IPR SHOULD be discussed by the WG, and this discussion is
ObDeclaration: I am also a practitioner in this field.
I see no problem with people making purely factual claims such as
'Document X may constitute prior art with respect to some of the
claims'.
Making conclusions is where the problem might lie, if that is someone
was foolish enough to consider c
There is no such rule in the IETF, although perhaps patent discussions
need some moderation to avoid becoming ratholes. To quote some pieces
of text from RFC 3669 (which I recommend you read in full):
"It's all right, and sometimes beneficial, to discuss IPR claims
and gather information abo
Todd,
My email to the PWE list and to my co-authors was neither about scope nor
validity.
The trigger was an email from the IETF Secretariat informing the co-authors of
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map
of a new IPR disclosure.
I had recently finished extensive editorial work in this draft, and in
Hi Samba,
It seems there is firewall between host-X and host-Y, so the cross path packets
can not reach the destination?
In my understanding, some aspects may impact the result.
As far as I know, different vendors maybe provide different implementation.
some provide parallel path, like
Hi Samba,
It seems there is firewall between host-X and host-Y, so the cross path packets
can not reach the destination?
In my understanding, some aspects may impact the result.
As far as I know, different vendors maybe provide different implementation.
some provide parallel path, like
13 matches
Mail list logo
