Dear Eve,
Thanks for your review.
I think you are actually right. We cannot say that the protocol is
(already) defined. But we should indicate that such a protocol should be
defined as part of the work on linear protection.
We will fix the text accordingly.
Best regards,
Nurit
From:
Review for the Transport Directorate
draft-ietf-mext-flow-bindings-06.txt
2010-05-06
Allison Mankin
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
On 2010-05-06, at 05:01, Robert Stangarone wrote:
I did just as you suggest (contact the FTC) some time ago, and Dean
stopped the SPAM.
This sounds like valuable operational data. Given your experience, can you
confirm exactly what you had to send and to whom in order to make this happen?
I have the following comments on this document
1. I find the following statement ambiguous:
CCC is not used to constrain MIME encapsulated data, i.e., MIME
wrapping layers are not processed with regard to CCC.
I do not know if this means that processing is to stop at a MIME
Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
document's authors for their information and to allow them to address
any
Theodore Tso wrote:
...
This was my experience as well (I travel a lot, to many countries in
Europe and Asia, and have never had a problem until I travelled to the
Netherlands last year) --- except my ATM card didn't work, either. When
I talked to my bank, they told me it was because of
Jari Arkko wrote:
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
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/1/2010 11:05 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it?
Probably not. RFC 3514 is actually a protocol. RFC 5841 is not.
A protocol needs to specify deterministic behavior by participants at
both ends of the exchange.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing
lists by 2010-05-20.
This seems completely reasonable.
john
--On Thursday, May 06, 2010 18:07 -0400 The IESG i...@ietf.org
wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
weeks on a policy statement, and the IESG actively
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This seems completely reasonable.
And to me too.
Marshall
john
--On Thursday, May 06, 2010 18:07 -0400 The IESG i...@ietf.org
wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to
I think the number of meetings 'registered' for is a poor criteria
for familiarity with IETF culture and more important familiarity
with the participation of the potential nominees being considered
for leadership roles in the IETF.
In the pre-day pass days, I paid full fare more than once but
On 5/6/2010 3:58 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This seems completely reasonable.
And to me too.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
On 2010-05-07 11:20, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:58 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This seems completely reasonable.
And to me too.
+1
+1
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
At 03:07 PM 5/6/2010, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
[snip]
RFC 3777 requires that voting members of
I partly agree with David,
and I don't understand the statement, why that use of a day pass does not count as
IETF meeting attendance?
They also pay registration fare to IETF, stay at the meeting venue in the meeting week (although only one day) with other
participants together, and
SM wrote:
A person can spend a whole week at an IETF meeting without understanding
the culture.
True, but it seems to me that on average that doesn't/
won't happen, and given the size of the nomcom this isn't
likely to be an issue.
I used to participate in every meeting, took a few years
Joe,
I responded to Dean directly and asked to be removed for the second
time, and noted that I had already contacted the FTC, which I had.
Here's the FTC link if you need it:
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
Bob
On 05/06/2010 04:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On
Looks OK to me.
Hope this helps.
~gwz
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-
boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:08 AM
To: IETF; IETF Announce
Cc: IESG
Subject: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass
Dear IESG,
I'm conflicted on this one. I agree that three days at IETF meetings does
not a NomCom member make, but I know several people who are very
experienced, but who are self-funding, and I can easily imagine someone
doing a day pass during a trough in their business cycle.
I would be
Total of 73 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 7 00:53:01 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.48% |4 | 11.74% |70385 | to...@isi.edu
8.22% |6 | 6.03% |36166 |
The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 via IPv4 Service Provider Networks 6rd '
draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
78th IETF Meeting
Maastricht, Netherlands
July 25-30, 2010
Registration for IETF 78 is now open!
Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/78/
1. Registration Types
2. Visas and Letters of Invitation
3. Accommodations Breakfast Information
4. IETF 79 (Beijing) Visa Information
5.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
action. Please send substantive comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing
lists by 2010-05-20.
24 matches
Mail list logo
