- Original Message -
From: "Peter Saint-Andre"
To: "Stefan Santesson"
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:16 PM
> On 9/13/10 12:39 PM, Stefan Santesson wrote:
> > On 10-09-13 6:08 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Shumon,
> >>
> >> As I see it, this I-D is attempting to capture
Le 15/09/2010 17:27, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=> That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the
host on egress interface behaviour. The RFC seems inconsistent
on its requirements for the egress interface at home, but it's
been a long time since I read it so I may have forgotten
Ole,
On 9/15/2010 9:40 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
As long as the prioritization of requirements is kept the way it is, yes, we
will regularly have these sorts of constraints on our choices.
No, this is actually regardless of what we prioritize for, assuming we
want major venues. The major venues
On 9/15/2010 9:44 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I have been told that there was a free bus every ten minutes from the
MECC to central Maastricht. I did not use it so I cannot say if this
is accurate or not, but assuming it is, would that satisfy? (The ride
to town would have been about 5 minutes).
On 9/15/2010 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I disagree that it "was a direct descendant of ARPANET". It has
a very different interface (connection oriented vs. message oriented) that
IMHO was not an improvement.
Right.
There were Arpanet folk who participated in standardizing X.25. But as
X.25 was a disaster area. I watched someone trying to code a PAD in 1984,
took him months to realize that the reason it did not work is that the spec
did not correspond to the bits on the wire.
The idea for X.25 certainly did not come out of BBN or the ARPANET. Many
groups round the world were loo
On 15 sep 2010, at 19:44, "Ole Jacobsen" wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>> Sorry, no.
>>
>> Waiting for these and paying for these is not convenient or reasonable for
>> 1000 people, just to get to daily resources.
>>
>> d/
>>
>
> I have been told that there was a free b
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for the review.
> Is there a way to present this information more compactly? I suggest
> a table with routing protocol on one axis, crypto suite on another,
> and requirement status in the elements (perhaps with a cite
> to the doc
> that sets the requirement). You might
Dave Crocker wrote in one of his abundant messages today:
> ps. Some of us, including Ole and me, have expressed our views
> overly much and overly strongly. ...
I agree.
> ... The question, then,
> is where the rest of the community lands on this issue?
Here we go!
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 16:39, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Far from being an incremental evolution of the ARPANET, Orange Book was
> essentially Spock with Beard. The ARPANET was a research network whose
> development was mostly led by academics with some input from corporations.
> Coloured Boo
Not even using the Avian Carriers RFC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11325452
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> There were Arpanet folk who participated in standardizing X.25. But as
> technology comparisons go, X.25 versus Arpanet were probably as far as you
> can get apart and still be doing packet switching.
So fart apart that when we started moving IP packets over dedicated
lines in South America the
On 9/15/10 4:36 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
>> Is there a way to present this information more compactly? I
>> suggest a table with routing protocol on one axis, crypto suite on
>> another, and requirement status in the elements (perhaps with a
>> c
sh don't say it out loud, the IGF may try to regulate the
reproduction of pigeons ...
BTW did each of the pigeons had a different class of service ? We need
to start the fight for pigeon neutrality !!!
J
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Not even using the Avian
On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> sh don't say it out loud, the IGF may try to regulate the
> reproduction of pigeons ...
If those pigeons are carrying MP3s the record industry will sue.
Regards
Marshall
>
> BTW did each of the pigeons had a different class of service
I suppose this means pigeon breeders will be allowed to apply for broadband
subsidies under ARRA in the USA.
Richard Bennett
On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
>> sh don't say it out loud, the IGF may try to r
Howdy,
The attached draft is part of the discussion Russ started up
with draft-housley-two-maturity-levels. It is compatible with,
but does not require a reduction in maturity levels. If you
would like to send me comments privately, I welcome them;
I suppose further public discussion would take
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of NomCom Chair
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:26 PM
To: IETF Announcement list
Subject: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for More Nominations
Hi Folks,
Nominations have slowed down
NomCom Chair wrote:
>
> Nominations have slowed down dramatically, so this update is to enlist
> the community in an effort to pick up the pace.
>
> We are very far behind in nominations for all the open positions but in
> particular we need nominations for the IESG and IAOC open positions.
>
Martin,
Speaking just for myself: I'm not discouraged by the discussions. On
the contrary, working on improving our meeting experience is an
interesting challenge. You are correct that it isn't possible to make
everyone happy and that expectations and experiences vary, but that
doesn't mean we
The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to advance;
interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that rather
significant change intentional? Or did you want negative interoperability
reports ("Vendor A is doing it wrong, so the spec must be unclear or have
fe
> The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to
> advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that
> rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative
> interoperability reports ("Vendor A is doing it wrong, so the spec must
> be unclear or h
On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> NomCom Chair wrote:
>>
>> Nominations have slowed down dramatically, so this update is to enlist
>> the community in an effort to pick up the pace.
>>
>> We are very far behind in nominations for all the open positions but in
>> particular we
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin
wrote:
>> The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to
>> advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that
>> rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative
>> interoperability reports ("V
> The current gates for proposed standard are
> high. If a doc passes them and no
> one finds new issues in two years of use, it is probably done. If
> there are issues (filed errata, an ongoing
> effort at a -bis, community reaction that it is not really in use), I
> think two years will probabl
Two very different kinds of questions occur to me, reading this.
Firstly, the one really good thing about our current draft advancement
process is that we go look carefully and figure out what pieces of the
RFC have not been implemented. Given that this takes work, it is
unlikely to be raised
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 9/14/2010 9:58 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> > Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were
> > "restaurant" districts nearby for those with vehicles.
>
> Virtually no attendee had a vehicle at either of those venues
> (or many others.)
>
> And Dublin arguably had nothing "n
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Two very different kinds of questions occur to me, reading this.
>
> Firstly, the one really good thing about our current draft advancement
> process is that we go look carefully and figure out what pieces of the RFC
> have not been impleme
Total of 213 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 17 00:53:02 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.10% | 13 | 9.14% | 136928 | hal...@gmail.com
6.10% | 13 | 5.09% |76282 | d...@dcrocker.ne
Martin,
> Speaking just for myself: I'm not discouraged by the discussions. On
> the contrary, working on improving our meeting experience is an
> interesting challenge. You are correct that it isn't possible to make
> everyone happy and that expectations and experiences vary, but that
> doesn't
30 matches
Mail list logo
