Cullen Jennings wrote:
Wow, I find this whole email thread shocking.
Given the text explanation you get of F and L visa from the embassy
web site, which Mary quoted below, I have a very hard time seeing how
anyone comes to the conclusion that L (tourist) visa is the right
visa for an IETF
John E Drake wrote:
Once you have the visa, you are done. I.e., Customs is not going to
second-guess the validity of a visa issued by the Chinese consulate.
Issuing visas is the consulate's responsibility.
That's not correct. Having a visa does not imply that you will be
allowed to enter a
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I
asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North
America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Asia in two year period (3-2-1) ) or changing to a
1-1-1 policy
On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi,
I'm forwarding this message to the general IETF mailing list, because I
think we need a good discussion on this and the confirmation from the
secretariat/IAOC that this work will be done CORRECTLY NEXT TIME.
The fact is that
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Many countries we go to attend IETF meetings would probably require
business
visa but we go there as tourists on a visa waiver program.
I don't quite understand this discussion.
On Aug 27, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Many countries we go to attend IETF meetings would probably require
business
visa but we go there as tourists on a visa waiver
+1
When it comes to visas, it seems many people are expecting the
immigration officials to be liberal in what they accept. Personally,
I'd rather be conservative in what I send...
David
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com wrote:
Wow, I find this whole email
Folks,
Several members of the MPLS-TP community have indicated that they will be in
Washington, D.C. from October 25 to October 27. In order to reduce their travel
expenses and time away from home, they have asked if we could move the IAB/IESG
Joint Design Session on Forwarding Plane
On 8/26/2010 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer
to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1
...
(and sorry I just joined the thread now - been on vacation )
Cullen,
The rest of the thread explored this issue by a number of us, looking at
On 8/26/2010 2:44 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
but I still don't see how people come to 1-1-1, could you enlighten me.
I offered my own comments in the thread, including my version of wandering
around the data. I even commented that 2-1-1 had some justification but that
1-1-1 appears to
On 8/26/2010 2:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Apart from that, it's scare-mongering. Consider that
the basic model for IPv6 is not fundamentally different than IPv4;
why would the underlying security vulnerabilities be fundamentally
different?
well, just to give that question its due,
On 8/26/2010 4:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 8/26/2010 2:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
why would the underlying security vulnerabilities be fundamentally
different?
...
True, but the same property means that scanning attacks are infeasible
against IPv6 subnets. Attack tracking
- Original Message -
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
To: jordi.pa...@consulintel.es
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero,Sat
07:09
On 8/26/10 6:01 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi
Hello,
I would like to submit the following comments on RPL-11 draft. These comments
were generated from at a ZigBee interop test event
-Regards, Joseph
1. Clarification needed on whether ICMPv6 packets should have min size of 8
bytes. One of the RPL control packets is an ICMP with less
On 29-Sep-2009, the IESG issued a Last Call draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings
(Mapping Characters in IDNA). On 16-Mar-2010, Lisa Dusseault, the
shepherding Area Director for this document, notified the IDNAbis
Working Group that the IESG will not proceed with publication of this
document. This message
On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/26/2010 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer
to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1
...
(and sorry I just joined the thread now - been on vacation )
Cullen,
The rest of the
All;
Do you have IETF meeting venue preferences? If so, the IAOC wants to know!
Please take this survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8HPLZGJ
Thanks!
Ray
IAD___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Ray -
I started to take this survey then bounced out of it on the second page. This
comes under the heading of bad survey design.
I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and specifically
equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat stacking the deck.
What I'm
Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes:
Michael What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with
Michael both formal and informal meeting spaces where I stand a
Michael good chance of having a good technical discussion with
Michael random people at
I had the same reaction to the Maastricht comparison to any of those
other cities in terms of equivalency. I added a comment in that
regards to my responses. I agree 100% that the question is pretty
useless if Maastricht is considered secondary. A survey of the number
of hops (planes, trains and
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of NomCom Chair
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:58 PM
To: IETF Announcement list
Subject: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for Nominations
Hi folks,
The 2010-2011 Nominating committee is
I'm going to pile on what Michael and Mary have already said, by
saying the comparable list of cities (Minneapolis, Orlando,
Vancouver, Barcelona, Prague) isn't even remotely close to including
Maastricht. Each of the above cities are accessible internationally
via air (as in: on
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: e...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
Description: Discussions about the creation of an Energy Management
Working Group.
For additional
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: c...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cso/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cso
Description: This list is for pre-WG technical discussion of cross
stratum optimization.
For
The IESG has received a request from the FEC Framework WG (fecframe) to
consider the following document:
- 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Elements for FEC Framework'
draft-ietf-fecframe-sdp-elements-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
On 29-Sep-2009, the IESG issued a Last Call draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings
(Mapping Characters in IDNA). On 16-Mar-2010, Lisa Dusseault, the
shepherding Area Director for this document, notified the IDNAbis
Working Group that the IESG will not proceed with publication of this
document. This message
Hi folks,
The 2010-2011 Nominating committee is now seeking nominations through
October 1, 2010. The list of open positions can be found at:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/
Nominations may be made directly on the NomCom 2010-2011 pages by
selecting the Nominate link at the top
27 matches
Mail list logo
