First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp
(the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy as a
hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I almost take
offense in the claim that this is a generational thing.
Jari Arkko wrote:
First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented
Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr.
McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful.
And I almost take offense in the claim that this is a
On Wed Oct 26 17:30:04 2011, John C Klensin wrote:
As others have pointed out, that doesn't solve the water
cooler problem. It would probably require some rethinking of
how we handle BOFs, WG creation, and other tasks.
Creating a virtual water cooler is possible - XMPP chatrooms do
provide
Hi,
Like Jari and others I do not see the name as disrespectful and it is
unrealistic to believe that the loc/ID speration protocol can be renamed. It
has been around for more than 5 years it is just too late.
On the other hand, the name can be considered an homage by itself.
Luigi Iannone
Hi Luigi,
As I wrote in a recent message:
Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70176.html
HIP, which is a Locator-Identifier Separation protocol, dates from
2003, 8 years ago. However, HIP goes back to draft-moskowitz-hip-00 of
May
On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
I support this concept, although I would go much further and
eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings.
I absolutely wouldn't.
Travel (for meetings) is expensive, time-consuming, energy-inefficient,
and increasingly difficult.
Your assertions
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:33 , Robin Whittle wrote:
Hi Luigi,
As I wrote in a recent message:
Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70176.html
HIP, which is a Locator-Identifier Separation protocol, dates from
2003, 8 years ago.
+1
Donald
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
I support this concept, although I would go much further and
eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings.
I absolutely wouldn't.
Travel (for meetings) is
There is actually an black art (i.e. it takes practice) in technical
writing to develop abbreviations. Lets see
Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Generally it good to make it pronounceable, easy to remember:
LISP ... hmmm, I heard that one before, no good.
LIDS
LIDSEP
LOSEP
Hi Luigi,
You wrote:
this is your personal interpretation not what I said.
Sure - can you provide a more accurate interpretation?
- Robin
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 22:06 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
It didn't take long to find this on the TICC website:
http://www.ticc.com.tw/content/Download/DownloadFile.aspx?id=1
02
It is a PDF with a creation date of Sep. 27, 2005 containing
the Convention
Hi Robin,
Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want to be dragged in such kind of discussion.
I expressed my opinion, please do not attribute to me things that I did not
say or meant to say.
Thanks
ciao
Luigi
On Oct 28, 2011, at 13:52 , Robin Whittle wrote:
Hi Luigi,
You wrote:
this
These were requested by one of the authors of the RFCs in question.
We will gladly consider other requests.
Russ
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:45 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
I'm in favor of moving these RFCs to Historic:
RFC 1005 (ARPANET AHIP-E Host Access Protocol (enhanced AHIP)),
we don't have enough real work to do?
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Cool idea. I would hang out if other people did.
+1 to using protocols other than email for ephemeral discussions such as these
:)
--Richard
On Oct 28, 2011, at 5:03 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Oct 26 17:30:04 2011, John C Klensin wrote:
As others have pointed out, that doesn't
On 28 October 2011 16:36, Randy Bush wrote:
we don't have enough real work to do?
Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago
I tried to understand a discussion about the
ISE (independent stream), and gave up on
it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs
which updated other RFCs turned out to
First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp
(the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy as a
hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I almost take
offense in the claim that this is a generational thing.
I
On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:17 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
And frankly, if there's disrespect to be found here, IMO it lies in using this
sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people apparently don't
like.
(t)
--Paul Hoffman
On Fri Oct 28 15:48:50 2011, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
Cool idea. I would hang out if other people did.
There are 5 people in hall...@jabber.ietf.org now. Hardly a critical
mass, but it may be sufficient to count as other people, at least.
+1 to using protocols other than email for
Ned,
On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:17 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp
(the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy
as a
hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I
Eliot,
On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Bob,
First, I share your admiration for John McCarthy (after all, who does
not?). In that spirit, my understanding was that LISP was an homage,
and as such should not be viewed in a negative light. You're of course
right that we do
--On Friday, October 28, 2011 08:17 -0700
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
...
And frankly, if there's disrespect to be found here, IMO it
lies in using this
sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people
apparently don't like.
Sorry, Ned. I can't speak for others, but no
Hi SM,
On 11-10-27 08:09 AM, SM wrote:
This year's NomCom has members from:
North America 5
Cisco.com2
Juniper.net 2
Avaya.com1
Europe 2
Nokia.com1
NLnetlabs.nl 1
Asia 3
Huawei.com 2
Hi John,
Just responding to one specific concern (No. 3) you raised. I do
believe that the other 3 (Nos. 1, 2 and 4) require process changes that
cannot take place during the current nomcom cycle.
On 11-10-27 11:25 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
...snipped...
(3) I don't believe it has happened
we don't have enough real work to do?
Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago
I tried to understand a discussion about the
ISE (independent stream), and gave up on
it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs
which updated other RFCs turned out to be
as complex as the colossal cave
Randy,
Reclassifying old documents to historic is like cleaning your attic. Cleaning
the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while you are doing
it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have to find or store
something up there.
Milo,
Actually, I obsoleted 877 with 1356, so 877 should go on the historic
list as well!
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Milo Medin me...@google.com wrote:
Egads! You guys tried to sneak this by me while I was helping my wife
deliver our 4th baby? Have you no shame??
I would
Randy,
I was the source of the request that started all this, so you can
blame me! Of course, if you have replied a bit earlier, we could have
discussed this over lunch yesterday! :-)
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
Randy,
Reclassifying
First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has
implemented Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and
who views Dr. McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic
or disrespectful. And I almost take offense in the claim that this is
a generational thing.
There's a reason we use email here. It's called time zones.
Jabber doesn't work when people are spread across all time
zones.
There are forum-style mechanisms that also avoid the time zone
problem, but I've never found them as convenient as threaded
email.
Brian (Saturday morning, 10:50 a.m)
On 10/27/2011 09:02 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
The fact that the SHA-384 is used in the latter case in combination
with AES_256 it implies that SHA256 was replaced by SHA384 to
increase the security (the same way AES-128 was replaced by
AES-256). However there is no evidence that a 96-bit SHA384
I will continue under Re: Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split
since this does not concern John McCarthy or the LISP language.
BTW, the [IETF] is a subject header my maildrop filter adds to this
list. Other IETF/IRTF lists have a header, but not this main IETF list.
- Robin
RW Hi Luigi,
On 10/28/2011 19:10, Robin Whittle wrote:
BTW, the [IETF] is a subject header my maildrop filter adds to this
list.
Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
From the Re: [IETF] The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP GSE thread:
Hi Luigi (and other LISP people),
I wasn't directly discussing your opinion that the LISP protocol
shouldn't have its name changed.
My objection was to referring to the LISP protocol by its formal title
Locator/ID separation
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations'
(draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-03.txt) as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Pete
35 matches
Mail list logo
