Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/12 20:08, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So would it work to add this:
Note that relative ni URIs can occur, for example as shown in
Figure 5. In such cases, user agents MUST construct the absolute URI
as they would in the case of an HTTP URL, that is, in the
Did I miss an announcement of the change in format of
I-D announcement messages?
There's no longer a URL for the standard .txt format. That's
mildly annoying for me (extra time and extra mouse clicks)
and must be a nuisance for anyone who processes these messages
automatically.
At least, I would
This line is not too hot either:
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-01
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: 13 June 2012 10:48
To: IETF discussion
John,
On 2012-06-12 19:38, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 19:13 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
The above is at odds with standardization. The last reason
does not apply for Expert review.
I don't understand that statement. RFC 5226 says, in
On 06/13/2012 07:28 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/12 20:08, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So would it work to add this:
Note that relative ni URIs can occur, for example as shown in
Figure 5. In such cases, user agents MUST construct the absolute URI
as
Maybe an IESG statement on this respect can help here.
Is the existing text in RFC 5226 not sufficient? It contains extensive
text about the purpose and role of designated experts, and was revised
substantially the last time around to try and find a good middle
ground between being overly
On 04/06/2012 20:01, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on APPSDIR, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate
).
Please resolve these comments along with any other
Brian:
There was no announcement that this change was about to be deployed; however,
there was a long discussion of the change. It started with a request for the
HTML version of the I-D instead of the plain text version. At the end of the
discussion the decision was to use the Datatracker
Russ Housley wrote:
Brian:
There was no announcement that this change was about to be deployed;
however, there was a long discussion of the change. It started with
a request for the HTML version of the I-D instead of the plain
text version. At the end of the discussion the decision was to
It seems to me that if an expert reviewer thinks that something will do
notable harm, they should decline to make a decision and defer it to the
IETF at large
so they are not an expert, they are a rubber stamp? bs.
+1
More generally, the notion of appealing to the IETF at large,
Here is my reply to Claudio on the IDR list. Copying the IETF list.
--
Hi, Claudio:
Not sure if you are aware of the large scale outage that occurred a few
years ago from the leak of the confed related segments by one
implementation. At the
Dear Suresh,
Having the warnings in the draft is good but having a pointer to a document
including a fair and detailed risk analysis is also valuable and worth to be
acknowledged.
Having that pointer is an invitation to people who will deploy this mechanism
(I know some of them who are
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Hi Sam,
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases
I want to highlight one think in this document. The document says:
There is an existing tool for supporting Nomcom work. The set of
requirements specified in this document are mainly enhancement
requirements or behavior changes to the existing tool. Unless
otherwise stated all of
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) desires an IETF Mail List Archiving,
Web-Browsing Search
Tool that will improve email list archiving and searching.
The IETF makes heavy use of electronic mail lists to conduct its work. IETF
Participants frequently need to
search the archives of
Paul:
It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content. I
think that is not the case. Rather, the initial content will come from
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
Do you want draft-hoffman-tao4677bis to be published as the final RFC version
in the Tao series?
Russ
On Jun
--On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 16:06 -0400 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Paul:
It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web
page content. I think that is not the case. Rather, the
initial content will come from draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
Do you want
On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Paul:
It implies that the current RFC will become the initial web page content. I
think that is not the case. Rather, the initial content will come from
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis.
Good catch. I'll add explicit text in -02 that says that
--On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 08:48 -0400 Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Maybe an IESG statement on this respect can help here.
Is the existing text in RFC 5226 not sufficient? It contains
extensive text about the purpose and role of designated
experts, and was revised
* Randy Bush wrote:
It seems to me that if an expert reviewer thinks that something will do
notable harm, they should decline to make a decision and defer it to the
IETF at large
so they are not an expert, they are a rubber stamp? bs.
Expert reviewers should use their judgement, but that
On 4/30/12 10:27 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
Disclosure Rules'
draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG
The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG
(oauth) to consider the following document:
- 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage'
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-20.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
22 matches
Mail list logo
