On 15.02.2012 23:31, Thomas Narten wrote:
A WG Review message for this WG already went out a month ago.
What has changed to necessitate another Last Call?
Could the-powers-that-be please make it easier for those who might
care to understand if there is something here that we should know and
John,
The IESG had no specific objection to these parts, but we made the charter in general
shorter and reformulated some of the results. In particular, the idea was to put much of
the material that you pointed to into the LISP impacts document. In general,
the IESG felt that we had to go
On 2/16/2012 6:46 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Why? Apart from the fact that if this transition is painful, the next
one will be well-nigh impossible, having more bits lets us find creative
ways to use the address space.
Not to single out Steve, but my recollection is that that view was at
On 2/16/2012 8:49 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Anyway, I take the situation that John's describing as annoying
but not an actual problem - we don't decide by voting.
Right.
And perhaps the focus for this issue should be on the ability of the (relatively
few) folk making decisions to
(FYI)
Also, an HTML version with feedback links is available at
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.html.
Best regards, Julian
On 2012-02-17 15:45, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
Greetings!
Is there a more or less complete description of SEARS? Google can't
find anything instead this or that trade companies, Wikipedia shows
some people and some trade companies too...
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Todd Glassey tglas...@certichron.com wrote:
So SEARS is a method of
Hi Carsten,
Somehow, luck is not how I would have described the process.
I think if you thought it important enough to do a WGLC in November 2011,
you maybe should have made it for longer than a week and avoided the US
Thanksgiving holiday.
We had several groups interested in possibly using
On 2/16/2012 11:20 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
How do you find the well-known service portal if DNS isn't working?
You have to manually enter a fail-over providers address when you
install it.
Todd
Dale
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
potential vote packers in voluntary consensus standards processes take heed
of 1988 Supreme Court affirmation of lower court award of $3.8 million in
damages (before trebling) antitrust liability of Allied Tube Conduit Corp
when packing NFPA process
On 2/17/12 7:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
And perhaps the focus for this issue should be on the ability of the
(relatively few) folk making decisions to distinguish between
substantive vs. political input, rather than on trying to prevent the
political input.
Getting the folk who evaluate
Randy Bush speaketh:
in reply to: Nick Hilliard
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason
that people are moaning about it so much is that they understand
the concept of address allocation.
exactly. they understand the concept. and, like many things
where the surface
From: Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com
We do need to make sure that the folks evaluating consensus know
that voting doesn't count and that their decisions are made by
consensus on the technical issues, not the number of people speaking.
Yes, but how do you tell where the
Steve,
On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:30 39PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Thus, IPv6 was mortally wounded from the beginning.
The history is vastly more complex than that. However, this particular
decision
was just about
On 2/17/2012 9:59 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
(provided, of course, that they are from long-time
IETF partipants).
Noel,
Given that Nomcom membership can be granted to folk who have attended only a few
recent meetings and without any requirement that they know or have done anything
in the
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
the other reason why we went with 128-bit address with a 64/64 split
as the common case and defining IIDs that indicate if they have
global uniqueness. This creates a framework that an ID/locator split
could be implemented. ... we
Who gets to decide who the experts are?
i listen the folk actually implementing and actually using. i also
listen to researchers with expertise in the field. the ietf politicians
are already in my ~/.procmailrc. you are welcome to listen to whom you
wish.
Are you telling me, that because I
Randy Bush respondeth...
Who gets to decide who the experts are?
i listen the folk actually implementing and actually using. i also
listen to researchers with expertise in the field. the ietf
politicians
are already in my ~/.procmailrc. you are welcome to listen
to whom you
wish.
Noel,
On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
the other reason why we went with 128-bit address with a 64/64 split
as the common case and defining IIDs that indicate if they have
global uniqueness. This creates a framework that an ID/locator
On 2/17/12 11:59 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Pete Resnickpresn...@qualcomm.com
We do need to make sure that the folks evaluating consensus know
that voting doesn't count and that their decisions are made by
consensus on the technical issues, not the number of
On 2012-02-18 08:10, Bob Hinden wrote:
Noel,
On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
the other reason why we went with 128-bit address with a 64/64 split
as the common case and defining IIDs that indicate if they have
global uniqueness.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:14:18PM -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in
Not to me. I don't see what they add.
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something. It asks whether the WG is solidly behind
something, or whether
On 2/17/12 10:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something. It asks whether the WG is solidly behind
something, or whether there are actually just two or three people
interested and everybody else not paying attention.
On 2/17/12 1:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:14:18PM -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in
Not to me. I don't see what they add.
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something. It
Hi Melinda,
At 12:10 17-02-2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
What is a working group?
It is a group, comprised of technically competent participants,
governed by a charter which:
1. lists relevant administrative information for the group
2. specifies the direction or objectives of the working
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit unnerving.
Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't. When a person's
opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc. are judged exclusively by do I know
this person then you have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
unnerving. Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't.
When a person's
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 14:23, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
unnerving. Either
--On Friday, February 17, 2012 13:34 -0800 Paul Hoffman
paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that
started this thread.
And I want to repeat, once more, that there was no proposal.
There was an observation about what I consider a problem. That
On 2/17/12 3:34 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
*and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
unnerving.
Hi, Kim,
First, thank you for your detailed response to my quite lengthy review.
Some further clarifications and confirmations appear below.
Joe
On 2/17/2012 12:09 PM, Kim Kinnear wrote:
Joe,
Thank you for your review.
My responses are indented, below...
On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Joe
You are assuming that the truth value of statements can be decided by an
impartial, technically-competent observer. In some of the recent discussions,
many of the claims were X is (not) going to do Y in the future or Using X
may cause Y do to something. Unless the observer has a crystal ball,
Hi, Kim,
On 2/17/2012 12:22 PM, Kim Kinnear wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
One additional transport suggestion:
- it would be useful to include recommended configurations for TCP
connections. Given these are multi-byte request/response exchanges,
Nagle should
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent
Redirect)'
draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt as an Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
We ran over time at the February 16th interim meeting and still missed two
presentations.
This email announces another BEHAVE interim meeting, webex teleconferencing
only, on Friday, March 2, at 7am Pacific Standard Time. Agenda, Webex, and
dialin details are at
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6530
Title: Overview and Framework for Internationalized
Email
Author: J. Klensin, Y. Ko
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6531
Title: SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email
Author: J. Yao, W. Mao
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: February 2012
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6532
Title: Internationalized Email Headers
Author: A. Yang, S. Steele,
N. Freed
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6533
Title: Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition
Notifications
Author: T. Hansen, Ed.,
C. Newman, A. Melnikov
Status:
39 matches
Mail list logo
