My usual experience at such places is that there is enough
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
+10
/d
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net
via mobile
_
From: Michel Py
Sent: Fri Aug 19 19:54:48 PDT 2011
To: IETF , John C Klensin
Subject: RE: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary
afterIDNA2008
[trimmed the cross-post To
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net
via mobile
-Original Message-
> I pretty much agree, although one form of discuss might be
> reasonable: "This document needs to be recycled at Proposed
> Standard because of the following *observed* interoperability
> problem:
scenarios, DKIM was not intended to
survive re-posting.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
reasonable to build it into the
model explicitly so that it (or its absence) can be detected structurally.
That said, the construct works quite well, for those who remember to use
it...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mailing list address from a
cryptic working group reference or go through the work to find it.
One might argue that this is a test of their resolve and that we want to filter
against overly casual participation, but that seems an odd bit of logic.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
a few years ago and arguments similar
to John's were invoked to kill it.
Based on how rare discussion venue citation remain, it's time to make the matter
more explicit and formal.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_
o have redundant indication of list handling, the
different conventions serve different purposes.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
helpful and it's an extremely
widespread convention.
[Discussion] could apply to any group, anywhere, whereas [IETF] nicely
identifies exactly this list.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf
lve.
And, as I said before, my criticism is of those who have imposed this
technology on the IETF lists, not of the technology itself.
Indeed. It really is irresponsible of them to improve the accountability of
email going out through the IETF.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWork
cated I am, since I hadn't heard of Swift's essay...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
that claims it should be there.
In other words, the current complaint is about something missing. Please quote
the specification of that and then the part of the original charter that said we
would do it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
llingness to engage in that discussion and to pursue it seriously.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
are such a terrible burden for you, strip the field off.
It does seem odd to complain about a mechanism that (finally) provides a
certifiably valid identifier on messages, in an environment where 90% of the
traffic across the Internet exploits the fact that there hasn't been one...
f which is cleaner and safer than is possible today, except with
constrained uses of previous-hop IP(v4) addresses.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
rk.
I do not think we should add speculation about the potential problems to this
document.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I seem to recall having sometimes seen the chair reserve the front of the
seating for people who claim to have read the drafts.
d/
On 7/29/2011 12:12 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
Just for the record: we want big rooms!
On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
And do you really only want pe
ensus used to approve standards/bcp,
* IETF consensus used to approve other documents through the IETF
* Independent Informational and Experimental submissions that are published
/without/ IETF approval.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
se.
DKIM is a different semantic, not just a different implementation.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
t you take a look at:
The Truth About DKIM
<http://bbiw.net/presentations/DKIM%20Truth.pdf>
specifically slide 4. The left hand side includes a short list of common
mis-assumptions about DKIM's meaning, along with the one correct one. See
whether you know which is the righ
they haven't read. Nobody
would, I hope.
Therein lies a core problem with the model: It hinges on personal investment by
the AD, and a lack of trust in the community process, using the excuse that the
process is not perfect, as if the AD's own evaluation process is...
d/
--
Dave C
reviews and the community support-vs-objection.
Imagine that the job of the ADs is to assess these and to block proposals
that have had major, unresolved problems uncovered or that lack support, and to
approve ones that have support and lack known, major deficiencies as documented
produces documents with many errors, already.
The world survives, as does the Internet.
It well might be true that omitting the AD reviews would increase the number.
By how much? To what effect?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
signer's
domain name. It really is tailored to use by highly phished sites acting as
fully-integrated bulk senders. It cannot work with more diverse environments.
The IETF email environment qualifies as extremely diverse. Our mailing list
operation breaks ADSP.
d/
--
Dave Cr
On 7/25/2011 1:17 PM, Glen wrote:
I am very pleased to report that the IETF is now applying DKIM signatures
to all outgoing list email from mailman.
I'll be presumptuous and speak on behalf of the DKIM operations community,
rather than just myself:
Cool! Thanks.
d/
--
Dave Cr
.
From all of this, I suspect that the only way to make useful progress
is to start over, and to begin with a much, much more clear and concrete
statement of the goal for the draft and then a very diligent effort to
organize the paper's sequence and carefully document its assertions.
d/
al precedent for the RFC to win?
Thanks.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
and haven't noticed problems reading or marking drafts on it,
so it really isn't obvious to me what you want to optimize.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o
h The DNS (i.e., with the existing
well-know roots) from A DNS -- the latter using the same protocols and records,
but not sharing the same initial roots.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf
On 7/5/2011 10:59 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
For an application that is likely to encounter a different IP address for
essentially every query, across a very large number of queries, the only
solution I see available is to use a different cache.
This has been operational
k for the constantly-changing IP Address behavior cited in this thread.
I believe that the solution is to have the applications, themselves, distinguish
the cache they are using (or the containing library). A blocklist app needs to
use a different library/cache than a web browser.
d/
--
Dave C
ss a very large number of queries, the only
solution I see available is to use a different cache.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ponding to the substance of his postings is merely
because there is no new substance. Absent any indication of his view gaining
support, there's very obviously no benefit to be had in responding further.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWor
do!
The most common rule being that postings are *ON TOPIC*
But the most important rule is to refrain from feeding obviously useless
threads.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
ove highly deceptive.
Excellent. Now it is also DKIM's job to fix problems with Unicode...
Details of this concern were stated in the tracker at:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/trac/ticket/24
wrong citation.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
__
r easy and inexpensive travel
and convenient IETF work environments, versus the desire for "interesting"
venues.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
s that the venue hotel isn't
allowed to rip us off by charging $35 for a hamburger...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
places.
In any event, if crime statistics are to become a factor in choosing IETF
venues, the IETF community needs to develop some consensus about this, including
what the acceptable parameters are. As of now, I believe that's not generally
part of the discussion in choosing a venue
mably by consulting with their ISPs / network operators). This may
be simpler and it's the way solutions to non-IPv6 problems tend to work today.
On the average, demanding that an end-user make an explicit decision about an
operational tuning issue does not work very well.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
empt to impose a more stringent requirement on
qualifying for BCP status than exists in IETF formal documentation.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 5/16/2011 8:34 PM, SM wrote:
Maybe this could be called "DNS Seal Team 6".
Well, apparently that would be /actual/ trademark infringement, with Disney.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing
relevant?
Perhaps that also means that all RFC references to cron are required to define
the term?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 5/16/2011 6:28 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi Dave,
I take no position on whether it's in good taste to use the word "whitelist" in
this particular instance or in general, but
On 2011-05-16, at 18:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. It is not previously standardized and I believe it is
On 5/16/2011 6:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On May 16, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. Changing times often call for changed vocabulary.
which is fine, the rational stated is false to fact.
But you do not seem to be refuting the point /I/ am making, which that the fact
that the
bably close enough to qualify as trademark infringement if this were a
trademark case)
How much longer does this list need to be to justify choosing better labels for
this v6 dual-stack transition hack?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
+1
The elegance and simplicity of this is quite nice.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net
Steve Crocker wrote:
A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the
boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online
from ..." The copyright r
uot;Not a Standard But Might Be One Later" really are
requesting comments.
seems like that is rather cumbersome phrasing for a label. perhaps we can come
up with a term that is shorter but implies a similar status with regard to now
and later.
hmmm. what about the word 'pro
that the /current/ draft lowers quality but that
the existing process has exhibited the lower.
In that case, it seems like the concrete way to resolve such concerns is to
propose specific text to add to the current draft?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbi
.
It is, indeed, a problem...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 5/6/2011 1:31 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards.
What, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe will lower
the quality of a Proposed Standard?
The parts
probably have a better Internet. But the fact that there is a majority practice
of staying at Proposed renders the minority practice of diligently qualifying
for Draft irrelevant, IMO.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ie
will lower
the quality of a Proposed Standard?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
anti-abuse-related addresses was merely an
exception.
d/
On 5/2/2011 8:46 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
Search on "whitelist ipv6". Results are topical. What's the conflict here?
On May 2, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/2/2011 7:32 AM, Richard L. Barnes wro
term for A
records there as no doubt it would be -- and indeed is -- need to use it for
records.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
It also explores the outlined concerns regarding this
practice. Readers will hopefully better understand what DNS
whitelisting is, why some parties are implementing it, and what
criticisms of the practice exist.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
cally "accountable"?
And by the way, what does it mean to be accountable in the way that you consider
so important?
What actions flow from that accountability?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf ma
ticipation in the IAOC/Trust as changing this issue.)
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
DNS is affected.
If its primary purpose is to provide guidance for enhancement, then it needs
architectural rigor and, again, substantive analysis, including comparison of
tradeoffs.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or be
explicitly invited to all IAOC/Trust activities.
This produces the continuity that is needed for the admin work, but also retains
access to the expertise of the I* chairs.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf
On 4/16/2011 7:51 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
That is a concrete and basic assertion. Please put some flesh on its bones so
that the basis for your view can be understood better.
Let me take a run at this.
Back in the pre-history of BCP 101 we had very
for their working independently and with
continuity.
Can you clarify the reasons for the choices you made in the proposal?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailma
ined the IAOC/Trust, which means I've attended a few
meetings and seen some operation. As always, my comments have nothing to do
with the individuals; this is about organizational design.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
a fundamentally different task from detected invalid From: field
contents.
ADSP, and add-on to DKIM, is felt by its promoters to be useful for detecting
invalid From: fields, but it does not work through mailing lists.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWor
delegated or not, but they
also should appoint a person who is /not/ from their body as a voting person.
And that's my thought at this moment...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
between what is "internal" to the protocol,
versus what is payload that is delivered to the consumer (next layer up or
receiving application.)
Sometimes, the way a protocol is specified does not make this distinction
completely clear.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Inter
On 3/29/2011 3:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sad news:
Indeed.
Katie Hafner ("Where Wizards Stay Up Late") did a very nice obituary, also:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/technology/28baran.html?src=busln>
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWo
ferent task and different part of the
architecture.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
standards too, albeit ones developed
privately, with private review: Within a company it is typical to have the
mobile code and the server be implemented by different teams and they need to
code against a common spec, hence a protocol stanards...
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
Other Dave C's highlighting the possibility of an "abstract" API is also
worth considering.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
his is that it
moves the problem to the folks with the knowledge and incentives to work on it
and it takes this very expensive specification task out of the IETF's critical path.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
I
for games).
The draft gave no indication of which model it wants to pursue.
>> 8. Extraneous
>>
>> The draft has an extended discussion about a number of important hardware
and software limitations that appear to be independent of the language and
platform, as we
curity challenges: An application class might permit pre-installing certified
class-specific "sandboxes" to safely contain the mobile agent, while permitting
carefully-disciplined access to local resources.
Discussions should explore these and related tasks.
As for the view that it is ti
no changes proposed for moving to Historic. (The question of Historic
has not been part of the many discussions about streamlining the standards
labeling.)
Hence that issue is out of scope for the document.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.
n flourished.
So that doesn't make a very useful criterion. A more useful criterion would be
demonstrating that the confusion causes significant problems.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing l
ve a constructive, alternative suggestion.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
historic needs to be based on affirmative data. The declaration
is actually only important to make for protocols that are known to be problematic.
Issuing a declaration for mere non-use is a matter of convenience, not need,
IMO.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On 3/2/2011 6:03 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
Tony, Dave,
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 19:59 +, Tony Finch wrote:
On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:56, Dave CROCKER wrote:
If you all promise to keep in mind that it is only a /very/ rough
and formative effort, please take a look at:
<http://bbiw.net/t
On 3/1/2011 11:59 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:56, Dave CROCKER wrote:
If you all promise to keep in mind that it is only a /very/ rough and formative
effort, please take a look at:
<http://bbiw.net/trac/suites/>
There are also some groups of RFCs listed at
what changes would
you like to see?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
%, now.
Pretty serious 'market' domination...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
nd 50-60%?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 1/30/2011 8:06 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 07:49:44AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The current proposal specifies a second maturity level that does not
permit changing the technical specification.
Yes, I know. I fail completely to see why anyone would ever do the
or fail has nothing to do
with the criterion you are citing.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
nt, testing and
deployment is essential, of course. But there is nothing essential in having
the IETF mark completion of any of those intermediate phases.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.or
one
added sentence to cover "interoperability" about IPR:
+1
It's terse, relevant and seems pragmatic.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 12/31/2010 6:56 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So I would like to ask for folks to help the community develop some concrete
information about this, by adding entries and comments to the IETF's Outcomes
Wiki:
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/>[2]
...
Some infrastructure
On 1/10/2011 12:01 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Yes, we know about this other workshop. We also checked how likely the
participants overlap.
ack. tnx.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf
in Prague.
Just to check: I assume you folk know about a somewhat related event that
overlaps with this, on Friday, in nearby Leipzig:
The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things
<http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/programme.html>
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg
neatness or a community OCD neurosis. It
needs to be about pragmatic guidance to the community.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ges, use the Comments column in the
wiki, for recording information that might warrant a new column in the table.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
a document on this and the IETF track record has been
quite good.
We should share the joy.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
r this issue, should "downref" constraints
pertain only to standards track or should it apply to all RFCs? If the latter,
what does it mean to have a downref for a document that is not on standards track?
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
__
seems well enough formed and detailed.
Please approve it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I left last Wednesday and the, visibility seemed to be about 200 yards. I was
told that it was worse on Thursday. I guess it was...
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131440157>
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bb
On 11/13/2010 7:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
At the end of an IETF week, I guess we are all
tired. Please note the comma and parse that as
Actually I think this was karmic retribution. I should have taken my own advice
and waited to get my coffee...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
two step:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00>
It even makes that clear in the I-D filename.
It's primary distinction is different criteria for the second step.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
familiarity, in reality most of the 1200, or so, attendees are strangers to each
other. In most of the world, trusting 1200 strangers to keep one's property
safe is not especially rational.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
interoperability testing that is
limited to the specification.
The only role of the IETF in such a process is to aid in getting agreement on
any specification changes that might be needed, when the divergence is due to
/enhancements/ that are non-standard.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg
On 11/11/2010 10:17 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
On 11/11/2010 12:01, Dave CROCKER wrote:
It is a change in practice. It is not a change in formal requirement.
This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*)
No, I've been refused entry to the terminal room at least once because
ge at the microphone
included the observation that this was done without notice, for example.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
401 - 500 of 1810 matches
Mail list logo
