I second this. If some WG wants to maintain such a bounced list, that's
fine, but there isn't sufficient reason for it to be a requirement.
It's too bad that the exponentially increasing volume of spam has such
corrosive effect but that is the reality. Every IETF WG list I have
anything to do with
7 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:00:20 -0500
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
>
> > PS: The namedropper
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> ...
>
> I agree with the notion that all folks in positions of perceived power
> (e.g. IAB, IESG, WG Chairs, IRTF Chair) should be required to disclose
> publicly
> all of their relationships (e.g. employment, presence on other
> Internet-related
I sometimes put the working group name on drafts also. But an RFC is
never issued by a working group. It is issued by the I* after IESG
review and usually after IETF Last Call. I'm dubious about putting the
WG name in the RFC but if that were done, it shouldn't be more than an
interior footnot
(1) Tradition.
(2) To distinguish people with similar names that are affiliated with
different organizations.
Thanks,
Donald
==
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Street +1-50
work Working Group
>
> Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>
> >I sometimes put the working group name on drafts also. But an RFC is
> >never issued by a working group. It is issued by the I* after IESG
> >review and usually after IETF Last Call. I'm dubious about puttin
That's because the price was suddenly jacked up to a totally absurd
figure.
Thanks,
Donald
==
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
M
Yes, just make up a file name according to the rules and it will
probably be fine. If not, the secretariate will either adjust it for you
or send back the draft with the file name they want you to insert.
Thanks,
Donald
==
Dona
If ISO is never going to charge for use of such fundamental standards as
country codes, it should warrant that it never will. In todays age of
"Intellectual Property Rights" madness, their failure to so warrant
leaves all users vulnerable to arbitrary future disruption and charges.
Thanks,
Dona
See RFC 1715, November 1994, and the endless discussions that appeared
on a variety of mailing list about IPv6 addresses.
Thanks,
Donald
==
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Street
Deep (many label) DNS names work fine. But for some reason the DNS
system has long suffered from lust for the root where people scramble
for DNS names with the minimum number of labels. This, coupled with the
marketing efforts of some TLD owners resulting in very wide zones that
require huge server
Maybe I'm confused but, as I understand it, standards track level is
already, in principle, completely decoupled from "write and publish an
RFC" in that the standards level is not incorporated in the RFC
anywhere but listed separately.
In general, I agree with John Klensin as to what are considere
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:38:13 +0200
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: IETF Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ...
>
> To me it seems that the IETF can't make up its mind: are RFCs just
> drafts that don't expire, or are they
There is now a standard way to encode URIs containing arbitrary UNICODE
characters. This is described in RFC 3275 (which is currently a Draft
Standard), in Section 4.3.3.1, and in the corresponding W3C document and
has appeared in other W3C documents, for exampe XML Base.
Donald
On 30 Mar 2002,
I always put Acknowledgements sections early in my documents. It's
sometimes a bit arbitrary who is listed as an author and who is listed
as contributing. If you have have one to three authors and handful of
contributors, seems like they both should be pretty prominent. On the
other hand, if you d
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:43:24 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: how to take minutes
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Scott Brim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 05:5
RFC 3174
http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?loc=RFC&letsgo=3174&type=ftp&file_format=txt
==
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851
Personal draft have no status. Anyone who thinks they are supported by
the IETF has no idea how the IETF works. Drafts expire in six months
and get automatically removed unless they are under consideration by the
IESG or RFC Editor. The only way to re-activate an expired draft is to
submit a new
There is no defined "membership" in the IETF.
Donald
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:00:37 -0400
> From: Bill Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: IETF
>
> Linus,
> I curious as to whether or not y
19 matches
Mail list logo
