The Overview of Transitional RFC Editor Recommendations announced
earlier this week is now available at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/RSE.html
This document addresses all the high-level recommendations in
draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00. It provides just the right background
for the TRSE reco
Dear Mr. HÎnes,
Thank you for the clarifications. Now we see what you aimed at. In order to
address your concerns we propose the following changes to the text (for
complete details is the inline text).
1)
a) Corrected definition of Native Address (now using the term transport
address)
> Dear Mr. Hönes,
>
> I have queued a document that contains the STRICTLY EDITORIAL corrections
> documented below for the RFC Editor.
> I did not submit the document yet, because I am waiting for instructions
> from the RFC Editor regarding these late comments.
Thanks for your efforts and elabora
Dear Mr. HÎnes,
I have queued a document that contains the STRICTLY EDITORIAL corrections
documented below for the RFC Editor.
I did not submit the document yet, because I am waiting for instructions
from the RFC Editor regarding these late comments.
List of Changes made to the document for the
We shall review the issues identified below and provide editorial
corrections.
We have two questions:
1) The subject line categorizes the concerns below as "-- more
concerns". Are there any other concerns that we are not aware of or that
were not brought to our attention since the upload of
Hello,
the recent discussion on draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-07
(regarding the clarification of the role of this specification)
has also caused me to take a closer look at the draft text.
(Unfortunately, I had not found the time to complete my review
earlier and send comments.)
I strongly suggest
Hi, Yoav,
Recognizing that we all work in different parts of the IETF, so our
experiences reflect that ...
RFCs have one big advantage over all kinds of "blessed" internet drafts.
The process of publishing an RFC gets the IANA allocations. Every
implementation you make based on a draft will
On Nov 3, 2010, at 1:42 PM, t.petch wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should step back a little further, and refuse to charter work that
> will become an RFC unless there are two or more independent organisations that
> commit to producing code. There is nothing like interoperability for
> demonstrating th
- Original Message -
From: "Yoav Nir"
To:
Cc: "t.petch" ;
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:08 PM
Strange. I look at the same facts, and reach the opposite conclusions.
The fact that there were many implementations based on drafts of standards shows
that industry (not just us, but oth
At 13:39 29-10-10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Supppse we actually have the following problems:
1. People think that it's too hard to get to PS. (Never mind the
competing anecdotes. Let's just suppose this is true.)
2. People think that PS actually ought to mean "Proposed" and not
10 matches
Mail list logo
