On May 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, SM wrote:
> At 13:23 06-05-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I don't that is quite right. The problem in this case is not to do
>> with linguistic quality. It's due to a lack of formal verification
>
> Quoting from the detective story:
>
> "At [censored] we have ch
Hi Samuel,
the authors of this draft have reviewed it in order to address your
comments:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-18
Could you please have a look at this revision and let them know whether
you are happy with it?
Thanks,
Gonzalo
On 04/02/2013 9:08 PM, Samuel Weiler
On 5/7/13 12:07 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
as Best Current Practice
Sponsoring AD here,
Getting feedback on
> Maybe things have changed, but, if one actually believes the
> robustness principle, then, in the case Geoff cites, Exchange is
> simply non-conforming -- not because the spec prohibits
> rejecting on the basis of a fine distinction about IPv6 formats,
> but because doing so is unnecessary, incon
--On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:08 -0700 Ned Freed
wrote:
>> Maybe things have changed, but, if one actually believes the
>> robustness principle, then, in the case Geoff cites, Exchange
>> is simply non-conforming -- not because the spec prohibits
>> rejecting on the basis of a fine distinction
On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
...
>> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
>> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
>> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
>> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're stuck
>> wit
> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
> >> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
> >> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
> >> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
> >> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're
On 5/2/13 4:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 3:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> But the delay was really not my main concern. Primarily because I
>> think other issues such as transparency to the working group or late
>> surprises are more fundamental issues than mere timing. But also
>> because
On 08/05/2013 08:33, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
>> ...
I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
out, we deployed something with a restriction that
subsequently turn
Hi -
> From: "Brian E Carpenter"
> To: "Ned Freed"
> Cc: "John C Klensin" ; ;
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Language editing
...
> You are correct if only considering the mail standards. I suspect
> that a serious attempt at formal verification would have thrown
> up a
> On 08/05/2013 08:33, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote:
> >> ...
> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with
> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points
> out, we deployed something with a restriction that
> sub
11 matches
Mail list logo