Total of 77 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 1 00:53:02 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
11.69% |9 | 19.37% |98014 | hal...@gmail.com
6.49% |5 | 5.48% |27704 | d...@dotat.at
6
On 2010-10-01 16:14, James M. Polk wrote:
> At 09:59 PM 9/30/2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Since you asked, I'd like to see this move forward as quickly
>> as possible.
>>
>> Just one practical issue seems to be hanging. The draft says:
>> This document makes no change to the current STD pract
At 09:59 PM 9/30/2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since you asked, I'd like to see this move forward as quickly
as possible.
Just one practical issue seems to be hanging. The draft says:
This document makes no change to the current STD practice; however,
this topic deserves further discussion by
Since you asked, I'd like to see this move forward as quickly
as possible.
Just one practical issue seems to be hanging. The draft says:
This document makes no change to the current STD practice; however,
this topic deserves further discussion by the whole community.
Fair enough. But what h
and previously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci2bFFGM8T8
Cheers,
On 17/09/2010, at 3:31 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> 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 Journa
With regard to this draft, I need to reiterate a comment I made during WG
last call, as I think there is a procedural issue that needs to be brought
to the IESG's attention.
The draft has a normative reference to RFC 3472 "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-ba
