Dave and all former DNSO GA members and stakeholders/users as well
as IETF participants,
Dave Aronson wrote:
On Wed March 17 2004 02:44, Jeff Williams wrote:
Dave Aronson wrote:
...
Well excuse... mee!!! B-P Your diatribe that I
responded to, was the first appearance
Dave and all,
Dave Aronson wrote:
On Mon March 15 2004 23:19, Jeff Williams wrote:
Dave Aronson wrote:
Jeff Williams wrote (though I get the impression he's summarizing
other people's objections, not raising them himself, as he then
answers them):
I sure did, and for what
Dave and all,
Dave Aronson wrote:
Jeff Williams wrote (though I get the impression he's summarizing other
people's objections, not raising them himself, as he then answers
them):
I sure did, and for what should have been an obvious reason. It seems
in your case Dave, what is plainly
All former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users.
Seems that the self styled father of the internet, Vinton Cerf's
IP [ Internet Protocol ] has finally begun to be recognized as
obsolete for wireless networking. Not that this is all that unknown
as several stakeholders/users
All former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users.
Seems that the self styled father of the internet, Vinton Cerf's
IP [ Internet Protocol ] has finally begun to be recognized as
obsolete for wireless networking. Not that this is all that unknown
as several stakeholders/users
Stephane and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:09:16PM +0100,
Vittorio Bertola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
that posting in English is a significant additional effort for
Joe and all,
Thanks Joe. You should send this to the E-Vote list as well.
I'm doing research on what is available with respect to web based (or
email) interfaces that support political participation at the grass roots
level (bottom up). This includes voting and organizational systems or
Harald and all,
I Guess that a IETF consensus really means whatever you Harald
says it means much like what consensus meant while you were
Chair of the DNSO GA. But to be honest, no consensus can be
determined unless it is measured, which means a VOTE must be
held amongst IETF participants.
tactics. It
won't work!
But I know you won't... so end of discussion!
Cheers.
Franck
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 20:41, Jeff Williams wrote:
Frank,
I believe your outburst and false claim to Jim referring to his
post
as SPAM is atrocious and uncalled for. Please recant
Tim and all,
Tim Kehres wrote:
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With respect to the second above issue - I am very aware of what
happend -
some of our people sent single directed messages (unsolicited) to
parties
they thought might be interested in what we do. They were
Keith and all,
I don't think that I have seen any spam on this or the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mailing lists in quite a long time. Ad I can only recall two incidences
where I have seen any spam on either list. So I guess I am wondering
why there seems to be a perceived problem with spam on these
Ross and all assembly members,
I am in agreement with you Ross on this issue and the approach
in general. I would add for clarity that all of us here and in the
various constituency groups should work together to formulate
policy and implementation methods for addressing these security
issues.
Milton and all,
I agree for the most part your nicely worded analysis of Crispin's
draft (It that is what you want to call it? )
I found his draft mostly a vain attempt at attacking what already exists
and is now growing at a rather rapid pace of late. It appears that he
is using the IETF
All assembly members,
Recently Harald incorrectly reported that I was Bcc'ing GA members.
This is of course to me terribly laughable and somewhat disappointing
coming from the now IETF Chair. One with such supposed technical
knowledge should know that there are a number of ways in which
Frank and all,
It seems that you are one of several that have thus far expressed
some dismay and concern about this "Code of Conduct" document
and/or idea. I am one of those. I agree with all of your comments
here. The are well stated and I believe accurately express reasonable
concerns.
Jay and all,
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:23:13PM -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
At 08:13 PM 2/9/2001, JandL wrote:
How about Vint Cerf's comment that the internet was not designed
for more than a single root?
He said the DNS, not "the Internet". The difference is
Lloyd and all,
I am heartened to read your post and somewhat encouraged to see that
other than myself and a very few others that someone has the courage
to stand up for open discourse and free exchange of ideas on the IETF
mailing lists. I for one agree with you that if filtering is needed by
David and all,
I agree completely David. You might want to let the IETF know
this as they obviously don't or are now using the IETF drafting
process as a political forum... But than again Donald Eastlake
(Draft in questions author) has always been of a single root
structure bent.
David
Karl and all,
Karl Auerbach wrote:
NSI has made an I-D of the RRP Protocol.
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-rrp-00.txt
Am I missing something? I looked through that and I see neither
transaction identifiers nor timestamps. That alone could make
Bill and all,
Ok, thanks for the update on your status. Much appreciated.
Were you able to provide a contact for Joe? Given your
generic comments below that does not at all seem clear or
likely in the near term.
Bill Manning wrote:
Is there a name there at iana of someone who can be
Joe and all,
! wrote:
I've been doing our little annual update with the cctld community -
basically verifying that what is contained in the iana database is
correct. And usually it's not.
You mean as usual don't ya Joe? ;)
This year - I'm being approached by alot of tld admins who
21 matches
Mail list logo
