And of course if we had a slightly richer publication format we could
use, oh, say, underline, bold, italics and maybe even a special font
for normative terms, but I guess I am dreaming decades ahead...
I was waiting to see if someone was going to bring this up.
In Roman law, the way you
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13
On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote:
...
But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO.
Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear that
upper case keywords are optional (These words are often capitalized).
Indeed, numerous standards track documents don't use them.
On Sat, 2012-05-19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote:
...
But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO.
Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear that
upper case keywords are optional (These words are often capitalized).
Indeed,
On 05/20/2012 07:25 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
But the IETF is still living in Roman times.
If you want a discussion as to whether we should live
in Times Roman, that'd be best on the rfc editor list.
(Sorry, couldn't resist;-)
S.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote:
...
But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO.
Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear that
upper case keywords are optional (These words are often capitalized).
Indeed, numerous standards
--On Sunday, May 20, 2012 07:53 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote:
...
But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO.
Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear
that upper case keywords are
On 2012-05-20 17:29, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, May 20, 2012 07:53 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote:
...
But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO.
Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:06:25AM -0400,
Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
One dreams of a period in which precision and elegance were not
mutually exclusive properties.
You mean when French was the dominant language?
Nice troll. Let me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/20/2012 12:41 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:06:25AM -0400, Simon Perreault
simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote a message of 12 lines which said:
One dreams of a period in which precision and elegance were not
On May 20, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/20/2012 12:41 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:06:25AM -0400, Simon Perreault
simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote a message of 12 lines which said:
One
I am repeating what I have said earlier during WGLS that Section
5.9., Always set the CD bit on Queries, contains bad advice on how
to set the CD bit.
The setting of CD make little difference if all the machines involved
are being correctly managed. In that case all responses will
successfully
12 matches
Mail list logo
