Hi Dave, and All,
The beauty of the IETF is that it includes all Internet USERS
(i.e.people or organisations) around the world, no one should use it
in their interest, it should progress in the Internet
Society/Community interest following the *open* engineering knowledge
and practice. Engineers
Hi Todd,
I agree on your concerns but disagree with few issues, read my
disagree reason below:
Todd Most of the vetting happens between parties offlist and no capture .
AB any organisation may have this behavior, but what matters is as
long as you are participating to : monitoring input,
Le 2012-09-26 à 09:52, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
Hi Dave, and All,
The beauty of the IETF is that it includes all Internet USERS
(i.e.people or organisations) around the world, no one should use it
in their interest, it should progress in the Internet
Society/Community interest
I Suggest the following:
1) IF any participant disagree in I-D adoption in a WG or any other
decision, THEN, he/she takes a DISCUSS position.
2) Any participant with DISCUSS position related to a subject (he/she
refused)MUST have to take and reply to messages including their good
reasons for
On 26 Sep 2012, at 03:18, tglassey tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
The issue is how to remove the political BS which clouds so many initiatives.
Disagree that this is *the* issue. We also get technical BS and even stuff
that's utterly incompressible if you can believe that,
S
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
stuff that's utterly incompressible
In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot.
(SCNR. I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this
point, anyway.)
Grüße, Carsten
Dated: 26/09/2012 By: Abdussalam
Baryun (AB)
This is a reply to below request call.
Reviewer Related Comment: The General Area Individual input
Overall the reviewer disagrees to accept the document only after
On 26 Sep 2012, at 10:01, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
stuff that's utterly incompressible
In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot.
(SCNR. I'm not sure that this thread has any other but
Hi Barry,
There is a disconnect between what the Last Call is asking and what you
really seem to be asking as a feedback.
The Last Call question is:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the following document:
- 'Document Shepherding Throughout a
On 09/26/2012 04:01 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
stuff that's utterly incompressible
In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot.
(SCNR.
Signal to Clutter plus Noise Ratio?
I'm not sure that this
Le 2012-09-26 05:31, Stephen Farrell a écrit :
stuff that's utterly incompressible
Oops - let's see if the phone spell checker gets incomprehensible right this
time:-)
I understood incompressible as equivalent to pure random noise, and
it made sense! :)
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets'
(draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)'
(draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-09.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document is the product of the Behavior Engineering for Hindrance
Avoidance Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
13 matches
Mail list logo
