RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode

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 b

Re: Fwd: Can the USA welcome IETF (was: Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning Dean Anderson (reissued))

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 l

Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)

At 17:03 -0400 30/09/05, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees. I agree. There is s

Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process (fwd)

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 t

Re: ISMS working group and charter problems

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 firewa

RE: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

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 issued.

Re: Cautionary tale: Paris pickpockets

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 poc

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

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, codecs

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

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 m

Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless

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

Re: idea for spam protection

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 the

IEEE 802.11 and large meetings

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,

Re: MARID back from the grave?

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 draft

Re: MARID back from the grave?

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

Re: MARID back from the grave?

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&

Re: MARID back from the grave?

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 revi

RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

6/05, Dave 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)

RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

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 ret

RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

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 w

Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

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 application-s

RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

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-C

RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions

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 disc

The Font top-level MIME type registration I-D

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