Hi Bernard,
I'm afraid that, as it usually happens with 'software', we are overly
underestimating the huge development effort (in terms of human resources and
brain cycles) that is needed before arriving at a 'few hundred $ per year'
product. When it comes to the IETF, let me also add that, in
Hello,
It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and
anyone else, to provide your opinion about the following:
RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records:
1. The data in TXT is unstructured
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:
On 28 aug 2013, at 14:24, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and anyone else,
to provide your opinion about the following:
RFC 5507 primarily raises three
Roni,
Thanks for an insightful review, you have captured much of what we
been struggling with when it comes to the IANA allocations.
On 2013-08-28 15:06, Roni Even wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
On 8/28/2013 5:24 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and anyone
else, to provide your opinion about the following:
RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records:
RFC
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 07:21:13 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/28/2013 5:24 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and anyone
else, to provide your opinion about the following:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130828044224.06ee3...@resistor.net, S Moonesamy writes
:
Hello,
It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and
anyone else, to provide your opinion about the following:
RFC 5507
Hi Loa,
See inline
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
Sent: 28 August, 2013 5:20 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org;
gen-
a...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'HTTP Header Field X-Frame-Options'
(draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-12.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Web Security Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Barry Leiba and Pete Resnick.
A URL of this Internet
10 matches
Mail list logo
