ti, 2007-12-18 kello 12:39 -0800, ext Hallam-Baker, Phillip kirjoitti:
Run a split network:
IPv4 behind a honking great NAT
IPv6 with external routable IP address
Then attendees have a choice of challenges:
1) Make the applications you need all work from behind an IPv4 NAT
2) Get
pe, 2007-12-14 kello 20:20 -0500, ext Edward Lewis kirjoitti:
What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the plenary
speakers without jabber sessions?
Then again, there is XEP-0174.
Cheers,
Aki
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
ext Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/31/07 4:09 AM, Aki Niemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Continuing on something heard at the technical plenary last week. There
were people complaining that while protocols like STUN/TURN and ICE are
traversing NAT, they are in fact bypassing firewall policies, which
Continuing on something heard at the technical plenary last week. There
were people complaining that while protocols like STUN/TURN and ICE are
traversing NAT, they are in fact bypassing firewall policies, which they
should not be doing.
I think it should be noted that ICE [1] does *not*
Hi,
ext Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
At 10:05 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would
suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals:
- As part of WG chair training, train WG chairs in basic project
management
My 2 cents:
I firmly believe in the individual and voluntary aspects of IETF
attendance. I also belong to both categories; sure my employer pays for
the expenses, but nobody forced me to come over. (Come on it's Paris
after all, although I have gone to all of the Minneapolis meetings, too. ;)
I
ext Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
Ha Ha. You (and others) have made the point quite well that the
majority of IETFers are probably hardy enough to suffer through the
week without actually dying. So what? The real question is why we
must suffer at all (I'm actually rather surprised that Phoenix has
not
ext Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Sure there are. Here's a direct quote from the .mobi proposal:
Businesses and consumers that utilise mobile devices will
be able to take advantage of a wide range of Internet
services and content under the mTLD that have been specifically
Hi,
I'm going to half bake an idea here on how to get people more involved.
There are on-line gaming communities on the Internet that are loosely assembled on a
game site, there are usually no memberships, and people group together to form klans
and arrange games against other klans or teams.
Well, as with any type of incentives system, how you design the meters is critical.
You might actually take away points for writing I-Ds, as Harald was suggesting in
another thread, or only assign points for docuemtn reviews.
But even if this scoring system isn't such a good idea, at least I
Right, and soon after that people would start listing their RFCs in their resumes...
The point is that this scoring system already exists in the IETF, IMO. An author of an
RFC gets his/her name on the front page which works in two ways: the authors get
recognition for their work, but at the
It's incredibly unrealistic, but don't you really want to charge
more for Internet-Drafts on dumb ideas?
The problem with this is that dumb ideas sometimes later turn out to be bright ideas.
Should the author in those cases get refunded, perhaps with interest?
Cheers,
Aki
Hi Folks,
I happened to be at the Jabber BOF, which since has turned out to be a hot topic, at
least judging from the discussions at the IESG plenary. As far as I understood, the
objectives of the Jabber community were, that they mainly wanted a place for the
protocol documentation to be
13 matches
Mail list logo
