be interesting to know the stats of the breakdown, not just in
percentage, but also absolute number, if there is any major change.
Holding meeting in Canada may not sound like a bad idea actually.
-James Seng
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Livingood, Jason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recall stats
+1
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Joe Abley wrote:
I think the *whole point* of a standard is to restrict how things are
done, in order to promote interoperability.
Standards are recommendations not restrictions.
Tony.
--
And all of the questions I asked 10 years ago said that TLDs on that latter
scale would be problematic to the root.
Was that pre-Anycast or post-Anycast?
-James Seng
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
, then
I would have strong objections.
Incidentally, I remember it is a standing tradition that labels may
not be a single ascii character. But is there any technical reason we
should forbid it? (e.g. 6.cn have not kill any kittens yet)
-James Seng
___
Ietf
condition was adopted -
Would you be able to explain why the condition is no single Unicode
code point? Whats the technical basis for that?
-James Seng
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RFC 4282 defined
label = let-dig *(ldh-str)
which means a single-label Unicode string would be absolutely fine
since it translate to xn--gibberish. A shorter gibberish of cos, but
still longer than a single character.
-James Seng
Potential problems with global use of single-label
Oops, ignore my email :P My reading comprehension is bad in the morning.
-James Seng
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:31 AM, James Seng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFC 4282 defined
label = let-dig *(ldh-str)
which means a single-label Unicode string would be absolutely fine
since
Which brings up a question can a TLD be used like a domain name?
not just http://microsoft/ but [EMAIL PROTECTED] will likely to fail to.
james
2008/7/2 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Another like restriction that might be investigated is whether
http://microsoft/ or other similar
(if there is one) to held up all petition
furthers and just post a summary of how many petitions received at the
end.
-James Seng
On 10/27/07, Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We have published encumbered experimental and informational documents
, what should I do?
http://www.unicode.org/charts/-James Seng
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I am confused. Why is this (ie, public-root.net operation) of any concern to IETF?
Even if this happens on root-server.net, the appropriate forum is to bring it to ICANN/IANA.
-James SengOn 10/10/05, Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See with your own eyes:; DiG 9.1.3 -t any .
is afraid to load on more stuff on DNS, we can
also consider SOAP).
ps: Sorry for the duplicates. Fast fingers :P
-James Seng
On 09-Feb-05, at AM 03:41, John C Klensin wrote:
James,
At one level, you are clearly correct, and several other people
have made the same observation today and over the last
but it is written in Chinese.
[1] http://www.em777.net/
[2] http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/w/2004-06-28/2331380918.shtml
-James Seng
Tony Hain wrote:
Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a
single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical
content, but no business
but it is written in Chinese.
[1] http://www.em777.net/
[2] http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/w/2004-06-28/2331380918.shtml
-James Seng
Tony Hain wrote:
Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a
single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical
content, but no business
review from IESG and less work on RFC Editors (so long the std
templates and copyrights are in place)
-James Seng
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 28. mars 2004 01:35 +0800 James Seng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Few questions:
Thanks, James!
1. Section 4 say that For documents
'?
Or 'IETF review' implies review by a IETF Working Group?
-James Seng
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:51 PM
Subject: IESG review of RFC Editor documents
The IESG has proposed a change in its
Sound nice but isn't this go against the rough consensus principle?
You are free to doc your opinion (even if it is not rough consensus) in the
mailing list.
-James Seng
What I personally view as crap has no bearing in regards to these
points, excepting that where I feel strong enough
Ah, that never cross my mind:
I always assumed that RFCs, been a product of the IETF (since it is
published by IETF copyrighted by ISOC) should also adopt the IETF principle.
But you may be right..no where in 2026 and 1543 say anything about RFC needs
to have rough consensus..hmm...
-James Seng
My apologies..that mail was composed eons ago but I left it in the draft
folder. Somehow, my mail client send it out a few days ago.
It is not my intend to feed any trolls.
-James Seng
It is considered bad taste to forward private message to public list
without the author permission, regardless of the reasons you have to do so.
james
Dean Anderson wrote:
This is the message to which Pete Resnick refers.
I did not get this until Pete mentioned the message number and I
Just a matter of curiousity: which division do you work for in Huawei?
-James Seng
Felix, Zhang wrote:
Dear all,
According to the current Internet, in most cases, the allocation/design of DNS is not more than 3-5 levels, such as us.ibm.com etc. What's my problems is that when using lots
is not going mainstream.
ps: https://helixcommunity.org/ - Real player (or at least Helix, the
Open Source version of it) is available on multiplatform.
-James Seng
Frank Solensky wrote:
A nit, perhaps, but:
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 20:17 -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
..Note that Real
Player
Can we don't pretend we can solve the spam problem on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
james
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 26-feb-04, at 15:05, Robert G. Brown wrote:
It has been pointed out several times now that unless you are willing to
receive mail only from a small, closed group of individuals that all
Read http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
then send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
james
Franck Martin wrote:
http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=RFCWiki
Where do I go from there?
How do I submit this document to IETF? Can someone review it? Give advice?
Harald?
Cheers
use your favorite booking service to find rates during
your stays.
Hope this helps.
choi
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 01:08:48PM +0800, James Seng wrote:
I know I shouldnt wait last minute to book but...
Is there any other hotel other then lotte which charge a reasonable rate?
-James Seng
I know I shouldnt wait last minute to book but...
Is there any other hotel other then lotte which charge a reasonable rate?
-James Seng
Pricing and architecture of the Internet: Historical perspectives from
telecommunications and transportation, Andrew Odlyzko
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/pricing.architecture.pdf
would give you very new perspective to all these so-called threats.
-James Seng
Spencer Dawkins wrote
want to put punycode on the badge so that eat our own dogfood, then
yes, maybe we should. But given the space constraint on the badges, I
rather put something more meaningful, like an .PNG of the person name.
-James Seng
John C Klensin wrote:
James,
My apologies for being a bit cryptic -- I hoped
are on the topic of the name badge, it is possible to somehow
tag the family name of the person? (e.g. underline? bold? captialized?)
Not everyone follows the Last Name First Name convention. In fact,
the concept of First and Last name is quite alien to me.
-James Seng
Dave Crocker wrote:
Fred,
FB
Crispin,
You need to get out of US (or Wsshington) more often.
-James Seng
I am not convinced that it is possible to use a computer on the Internet
anywhere in the world without at least a basic acquaintance with Latin
script.
I do not believe many individuals (other than primary school
place, and not here. The group
is suppose to work on Internationalization of Email address
(identifiers), not debate whether we need it or not.
-James Seng
I seen John and Paul proposal but I have not seen Michel. Is there a
draft that I can read up?
ps: I wont be able to join the meeting but I am interested in the subject.
-James Seng
Patrik Fältström wrote:
At the IETF in Minneapolis, there will be a BOF on Internationalized
Email Addresses
.
(The telcos model, OTOH, is the inverse, assuming smart network and very
very dumb terminal.)
-James Seng
What applications that people want to run--and the IT managers would
want to enable--are actually inhibited by NAT? It seems to me that
most of the applications inconvenienced by NAT are ones
If you need a secure zone, and you want a firewall, then should install
a firewall. You should not put an NAT thinking that it is also a firewall.
But I agree with you that NAT is here to stay.
-James Seng
Fleischman, Eric wrote:
Eric Rescorla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
similarly
The question: smart terminal or smart network?
I believe in smart terminal. Nothing there suggest you should not run
your firewall or any other filtering software on your end-terminal.
End-machine are vulnerable? Then fixed the end-machine. It isnt rocket
science.
-James Seng
Eric Rescorla
Shouldnt we have this discussion in keydist instead? I know keydist isnt a
working group yet but we do have a list for such discussion...
-James Seng
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 6/8/2002 8:22 AM Franck Martin said the following:
I was wondering if the best system to build a global PKI
I have no doubt some of the concerns are very real (others are red herrings) .
The question is whether we have a solution that have rough consensus or not to
address these valid concerns.
When we have acceptable solutions to these concerns, then we can discuss them.
-James Seng
Gee, maybe
.
Harald
Me too!.
I think you should try to keep your disagree with the chairs within your own
working group. Also look into RFC2026 on the appealing process.
-James Seng
the theory, or privately if you
prefer?
I will post it later if I have time.
Please do. Thanks.
-James Seng
of ISO are you referring?
So, don't bother to say that there are so many so-called-international-
but-actuallly-local domain names registered.
Huh? Since when this was ever a factor in IETF consideration?
-James Seng
of I18N and L10N in IETF, and not IDN.
Please bring it over to the other list and when/if there is a conclusion,
please keep the IDN informed.
Thanks.
-James Seng
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Erkki Kolehmainen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL
James Seng writes:
Particularly, it will explain why display of non-ASCII glyphs isnt as
simple as just use UTF-8 and everything is okay.
Here we go again: IDN WG co-chair James Seng responds to a discussion of
IDNA's flaws by attacking another proposal.
Nope. If you read my mail again
if it were not presented in exactly the correct way.
It is a protest and appeal against the last call. The IETF process specify
the exact process to do so in RFC2026 Section 6.5.
-James Seng
,
On 28th May 2001 (oh boy, we been aroud for so long?), I response to you on
the similar discussion: See
http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg02789.html
Particularly, it will explain why display of non-ASCII glyphs isnt as simple
as just use UTF-8 and everything is okay.
-James Seng
if
you have to _do something_.'' Until the IDN WG settles on a safe course
of action, we will have to stick to the status quo.
Once again, Marc did not say we have to _do something_.
You probably hear it in your dream.
-James Seng
James Seng writes:
The email protests from Taiwan is not against the current set of drafts
Liar.
Really? Do I need to response to this futher then?
I mean, for what I say, to you is just a lie. *laugh*.
Life would be so much better if everyone who disagree with you is a liar
isn't
s policies.
As such, perhaps it is important to rethink on the role for a IETF WG
chair, whose roles used to bring the WG thru the IETF process. It is
much more than that.
IMHO, a successful WG is one whereby it has been successful been adopted
and used by the industry.
-James Seng
Also, the question
you
doing or you are not. If you are not interested in the work, then joining IETF
for the sake of 'corporate representation' is not going to help the WG in
anyway at all so why bother?
-James Seng
jecting them in IETF would only results these to be done elsewhere.
I have no opinion whether doing in IETF or outside IETF is 'better'
but that it is a choice we all in IETF have to made. There is no right
or wrong but whether you like it or not, it is coming.
-James Seng
huge for APNIC.
-James Seng
Måns Nilsson wrote:
"James P. Salsman" wrote:
Apparently WAP is collapsing, both in terms of the general opinion
of engineers and pundits, and now customer revenues. The Invisible
Hand needs to slap some sense into the overly-greedy WAP Forum and
One after thoughts of IETF.
It would really really be cool if the Pub/Cafe is also on 802.11.
(Wait, that will means everyone will stay whole day at the pub then to
attend _some_ WG for their 802.11)
-James Seng
Ed Gerck wrote:
Because it is outside the scope of the IETF.
Why is it outside the scope of IETF?
-James Seng
52 matches
Mail list logo
