On 5/7/13 9:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
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
Heather, all,
You are correct, Peter. MISSREF and AUTH48 are not part of the RFC
Editor timed states, and the RFC Editor timed states have been largely
under 7 weeks for the last year.
Indeed. The actual time for what RFC Editor does for documents is quite short
(and thank you and others at
Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Where things become difficult is at the point where the maintenance
of our standards need to be explained and questions about progression
on the standards ladder get asked.
Personally I hope that RFC 6410 has the effect that we, as a community,
get serious about
At 01:32 30-04-2013, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
I am not sure what you think is unclear. Note that the definition of
the typedef domain-name is unchanged from the one in RFC 6021. Perhaps
you can make a concrete text change proposal so I better understand
what your concern is.
I read
I wanted to submit an I-D so I wanted to access the tools, as I have
done before, so I clicked on 'IETF Tools' from
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
and when that failed tried again with 'Tools Team Pages' from
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/
with the same result. Can anyone else get to tools from that
Both links work just fine from a selection of browsers/os/machines other
than Msoft. (Firefox, Evolution, Chrome) It also works on an old
version of IE8 but reports errors.
Presumably turning off some strict error checking in IE allows it to
display.
Running the page through the W3C HTML
From: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
I wanted to submit an I-D so I wanted to access the tools, as I have
done before, so I clicked on 'IETF Tools' from
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
and when that failed tried again with 'Tools Team Pages' from
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/
with the same
The domain-name type represents a DNS domain name. The
name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible.
That sounds like a MAY.
MAY != SHOULD
At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote:
MAY != SHOULD
The text is as follows: The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
possible. If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it
would help if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader
weigh the implications of not
On 2013-05-08, at 17:30, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote:
MAY != SHOULD
The text is as follows: The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
possible. If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it would help
if there is an explanation
87th IETF Meeting
Berlin, Germany
July 28-August 2, 2013
Platinum Sponsor: DENIC
Gold Sponsors: Deutsche Telekom and EURid
Meeting venue: InterContinental Berlin: http://www.berlin.intercontinental.com/
Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/87/
1. Registration
2. Visas Letters of
11 matches
Mail list logo
