Total of 209 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 8 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
17.22% | 36 | 17.15% | 261678 | mo...@network-heretics.com
1.91% |4 | 7.23% | 110229 | david.
On 24 Jun 2011, at 16:54, Keith Moore wrote:
> But one of the important attributes of consensus, one of the things that
> makes it so powerful, is that ideally, it's visible to everyone. Take the
> example where a bunch of people in a room are asked a question and asked to
> raise hands to indi
David,
Reading something, keeping it on record, without effect in the draft and
"ignoring comments" have IMHO similar outcomes. As author of the draft you are
free to do it. These standards have a great impact in our work, so i'm also
free to write what i did.
Stewart,
My tech
On 7/5/2011 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/5/2011 3:12 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
" The SRV record allows
DNS resolvers to search for particular applications and underlying
transports (for example, HTTP running over TLS, see [RFC2818]) and to
learn the domain name and port where that service re
Hi Erminio:
>Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
>transport networks' needs.
E> This is a true statement: the solution in this draft is useless for many
MPLS- TP deployments.
The two statements do not necessarily follow.
What we established during discuss
Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in February
where the comments originated. The revised meeting schedule resulted in a day
spent going through the document with the editors. IMO there were lots of
discussion and legitimate issues with the document ident
The way this draft has been developed is a bit strange.
The poll for its adoption as a WG document was halted by the MPLS WG chair
because "it is not possible to judge consensus":
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04502.html
The lack of consensus was motivated by serious tech
> Version -04 of the document was published June 28th.
>
> The publication request for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi was sent
> June 29th.
>
So when the WG LC to confirm the LC comment resolution has been launched?
The proto write-up says:
It has also passed a working roup call to
... or to use Randy's language, "6to4 considered caterpillar snot," but
yes, that is what I was thinking that end of the spectrum looked like.
Doug
On 07/07/2011 01:30, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Extremist-A should be to publish a "6to4 considered dangerous" draft with
> lots of MUST NOT language.
>
I also have one I'm not going to use.
Olafur
On 05/07/2011 5:32 PM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
I found that I have an extra reservation at the IETF rate
($229/night)for Sunday to Friday at the Hilton.
If anyone is interested I can transfer the reservation.
geoff
Erminio,
I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
behind.
You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
deployments.". in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to
Erminio,
I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
behind.
You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
deployments.". in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to
Extremist-A should be to publish a "6to4 considered dangerous" draft with lots
of MUST NOT language.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
Rex
Sent: 06 July 2011 23:50
To: Doug Barton
Cc: v6...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:
13 matches
Mail list logo
