At 11:44 -0500 11/11/05, Nelson, David wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...
I think that what we should do is to send the IEEE 801.b/g group a
polite letter pointing out that if our people here at the IETF cannot
figure this stuff out then their less technically astute customers
might
Eduardo,
I think I may be misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize. As I
understand it, the original announcement of the 'last call' was not
sent in strict accord with the agreed procedures, in that it used the
wrong mailing list. As a result it has now been sent to the correct
mailing
At 20:04 -0400 28/09/05, Dean Anderson wrote:
This was offlist, but I think it is relevant, now to similar
questions raised by
others.
My apologies to the list. I emailed Dean off-list, and was not asked
for, and hence did not give, permission to reproduce my email
on-list. I'm sorry if
At 0:30 +0200 7/09/05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 7-sep-2005, at 0:16, Daniel Senie wrote:
Actually, a Firewall Considerations section would make sense.
What would be in such a section? There are only three possibilities:
1. There is no firewall: no need for text.
2. There is a
I'm a by-stander on this discussion, maybe off-base or out of it --
but something other than the undesirable traffic struck me.
Isn't it also true that I might *deliberately break* all sorts of
things by introducing 'blocking' names into DNS responses, so that an
LLMNR request is never
I hear the opposite complaint enough to believe that the truth lies
somewhere in between (the ietf is dominated by academics who have no
idea what it takes to design, deploy, and maintain large complex
networks). I only see a tiny portion of the ietf myself, agreed (I
doubt many people see
Don't forget the organizations that adopt IETF specs. ISMA has a
regular interop and conformance program for RTSP + RTP + the codecs
used, both 'virtual' over the internet and face to face at most
meetings. Likewise IMTC does testing of 3GPP SA4 multimedia specs,
again using RTSP, RTP,
At 12:55 -0700 10/08/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
he said I'd be crazy
to have my wallet in the backpocket and urged me to put it somewhere
inside my jacket because that would be much more difficult to get.
when my wallet was lifted, 2 months ago in the Paris metro, it was
in my front left
At 11:12 AM -0500 3/16/05, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ? That
will pretty much
determine the price.
I know that the volunteer teams have some strong opinions on this, as
I have heard
At 9:22 AM -0500 3/13/05, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Date: 2005-03-12 11:18
From: Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
where's that Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem scorecard?
You're probably thinking of
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
great list. but just because there
Forgive me, I wasn't at the meeting, but I suspect that you had the
usual slew of problems with 802.11 networks at large meetings, such
as:
a) Users confusing other users by going into ad-hoc mode with the
same network name;
b) some base stations seem to get royally confused when this happens,
At 10:14 PM -0500 2/26/05, Keith Moore wrote:
Thanks. I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST
be as many entries in the revision history as the
revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision
00, and so on).
don't do that. it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier to
publication
At 10:34 PM +0100 3/1/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On lørdag, februar 26, 2005 21:22:36 -0800
Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, we only have two points of contentions: old personal drafts
submitted as version 00 of WG drafts; and old WG drafts
At 7:14 PM -0800 2/25/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +, Dave Singer wrote:
Ý a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay
Ý encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or
Ý owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name
Um, I'm maybe an innocent bystander here, but perhaps the following works?
a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay
encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or
owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name for other
reasons);
b) the
This is similar to the reason why the language code comes before the country
code. If we had the order CH-fr, then we could end up mixing French and
German in the same page, because we would fall back (for one of the data
sources) from CH-fr to CH, which could be German.
It has to be
At 11:34 AM -0800 1/6/05, Peter Constable wrote:
From: Dave Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is similar to the reason why the language code comes before the
country
code. If we had the order CH-fr, then we could end up mixing French
and
German in the same page, because we would fall back
At 12:14 PM -0800 1/6/05, Peter Constable wrote:
From: Dave Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, I should have gone on to conclude: the important aspect of
sub-tags is that their nature and purpose be identifiable and
explained (e.g. that this is a country code), and that we retain
Singer wrote:
At 12:14 PM -0800 1/6/05, Peter Constable wrote:
From: Dave Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, I should have gone on to conclude: the important aspect of
sub-tags is that their nature and purpose be identifiable and
explained (e.g. that this is a country code), and that we
At 9:14 AM -0800 1/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole question of what 'matches' is subtle. Consider the case
when I have a document that has variant content by language (e.g.
different sound tracks), and the user indicates a set of preferred
languages. If the content has de-CH and fr-CH
The *meaning* of any given language tag would be no more or less a
problem under the proposed revision than it was for RFC 3066 or RFC
1766. For instance, there is a concurrent thread that has been
discussing when country distinctions are appropriate or recommended
(ca or ca-ES?); this
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-singer-font-mime-00.txt
This was posted a while back and hasn't received much comment. I
suspect that it is not so much the quality of the writing as the fact
that many haven't noticed it...
It proposes registering a top-level font/ MIME type for font
22 matches
Mail list logo
