This is a very good question.
I've considered setting up a wiki page or similar to serve this purpose for the
HTTP family of specifications. However, it's not clear what authority it would
have, and it's not clear whether people would be able to readily find it.
If we can find a way to do
Shane
What I carry with me - used to be on a diskette, now on a stick - is the index
to RFC, available from the same source as RFC themselves. Plain text, compact,
easy to search. The caveat is you never know whether the people choosing the
title of an RFC will have abbreviated a common term
Mark,
FWIW, this came up in the dnsext working group a few years ago. In the
end, I don't think anything was done, which is kind of a shame. A lot of
old protocols could benefit by this is what is important documents
(search the RFCs for FTP or TELNET to get some examples of protocols
with lots
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
FWIW, this came up in the dnsext working group a few years ago. In the
end, I don't think anything was done, which is kind of a shame.
Nothing was done for want of workers ;-) We concluded there was no
real room in official IETF
Hi Barry,
we're tracking this as
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/278.
On 01.03.2011 00:33, Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm sorry not to have posted this during WGLC, but I didn't notice it until now:
The document uses the phrase are advised [to do something] in two
places (the
I agree that this needs tuning; but I'd rather not invent a new keyword for
that.
Sensible.
The appendix D
(http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.html#rfc.section.D)
isn't meant to be normative; thus I believe leaving it the way it is ought
to be ok.
OK.
Julian Reschke wrote:
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.html#rfc.section.4.3,
I believe we really should say SHOULD in all the three last items:
o Many platforms do not use Internet Media Types ([RFC2046]) to hold
type information in the
A few years ago some of us tried to interest the IETF in producing road
maps for all the major protocols/protocol families. As a worked
example, we produced a roadmap for TCP. It seems to me that you are
asking for more roadmaps.
Bob Braden
On 3/1/2011 4:18 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
Mark,
On 01.03.2011 18:06, Martin Rex wrote:
...
o Other aspects recipients need to be aware of are names that have a
special meaning in the file system or in shell commands, such as
. and .., ~, |, and also device names.
- ...and SHOULD and ignore or substitute these names...
On 3/1/2011 3:01 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
This is a very good question.
I've considered setting up a wiki page or similar to serve this purpose for
the HTTP family of specifications.
...
If we can find a way to do this, and to cut through the clutter of all of the
other information, it
On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:56, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If you all promise to keep in mind that it is only a /very/ rough and
formative effort, please take a look at:
http://bbiw.net/trac/suites/
There are also some groups of RFCs listed at
On 3/1/2011 11:59 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:56, Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If you all promise to keep in mind that it is only a /very/ rough and formative
effort, please take a look at:
http://bbiw.net/trac/suites/
There are also some groups of RFCs listed
I want to call your attention to
draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-iana-rfced-extns draft that was recently posted.
Thanks to Sandy, Michelle, and Alexa for putting it together.
Abstract
This document captures the requirements for integrating IANA and RFC
Editor state information into
On 2011-03-02 01:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
FWIW, this came up in the dnsext working group a few years ago. In the
end, I don't think anything was done, which is kind of a shame.
Nothing was done for want of workers ;-) We
On 3/1/11 12:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-03-02 01:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
FWIW, this came up in the dnsext working group a few years ago. In the
end, I don't think anything was done, which is kind of a shame.
As part of recognizing the IETF's 25th anniversary, we would like to
celebrate the tradition of IETF meeting t-shirts and community
contribution.
We are assembling a gallery of photographs of t-shirts from across the
years. The photographs need not be from IETF Meetings. In fact, the
more
On Tue Mar 1 18:56:25 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
If you all promise to keep in mind that it is only a /very/ rough
and formative effort, please take a look at:
http://bbiw.net/trac/suites/
I believe what it's trying to do is exactly what you are asking
for. It's in trac wiki form
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-mrw-nat66-08
Thanks. I picked these up in -09, so that there is no issue.
On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for
As part of recognizing the IETF's 25th anniversary, we would like to
celebrate the tradition of IETF meeting t-shirts and community
contribution.
We are assembling a gallery of photographs of t-shirts from across the
years. The photographs need not be from IETF Meetings. In fact, the
more
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for LDP'
(draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream-10.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.
21 matches
Mail list logo
