On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> On 06.09.2013 13:30, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>> Tell me what the IETF could be doing that it isn't already doing.
>>
> It really depends where you see the boundaries of the IETF.
>
> For some the IETF only produces documents and that's it
We will use this language. Thanks, Dale.
- Alan -
On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:18 PM, "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 20:05 -0500, Alan Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>> 4.1 - REQ-16:
>>>
>>> in this case, seizing the line is the
known to anyone who is, and hence no change is needed.
>
> 5.4 - please add "(Bad Request)" after each of the two instances of "400".
>
> 9.1/2/3 - please change to using "SHOULD" in each of these sections
> and explain that the "SHOULD" is mo
David,
Thank you for your review of the document. See below for how I
propose to resolve the issues you have raised. Let me know if you
have any other issues or concerns.
- Alan -
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, wrote:
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Is this yet another reason not to have IETF meetings in the USA? ;-)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/02/1719221/do-you-like-online-privacy-you-may-be-a-terrorist
The FBI and their would-be tipsters could be flat out trying
investigate everyone who uses encryption, anonymizer and privacy
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alan Johnston
> Date: October 27, 2011 10:53:27 AM CDT
> To: Ben Campbell
> Cc: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs@tools.ietf.org, "gen-...@ietf.org Review
> Team" , "c...@ietf.org"
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call rev
Cullen,
Your characterization of this charter is inaccurate. It is not about
transporting proprietary information in SIP but rather standardizing an
approach for applications to utilize SIP without having to have another 1000
SIP extensions and RFCs for every application that uses SIP.
Instead,
Colin,
Thank you for your detailed review of the draft. See my comments below.
- Alan -
On 4/13/10 12:19 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2010, at 22:26, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>>
>> - 'ZRTP: Med
Jon & Cullen,
Here are my last call comments on the document.
Overall, I like the approach and support moving forward with it, but I
have a few questions that I think should be answered clearly in this
document.
1. Section 4 talks about header field extensions, and the abandonment of
P-head
h by the way, is exclusively limited to
text messaging, which is a subset of the XCON problem space.
I propose wording changes to the charter which will make clear the
distinction between SIP signaling and SIMPLE for IM - I believe this is the
source of the technical disputes.
Thanks,
Alan John
10 matches
Mail list logo
