On 2 Oct 2012, at 19:31, SM wrote:
At 08:09 02-10-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
off bad or frivolous ideas), but closing is a big step. Telling
implementers that they don't need to pay attention to the
relevant codes and fields (and might even be able to use them
for a different, even if
On 3 Oct 2012, at 14:10, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:43 +0200 João Damas
j...@bondis.org wrote:
I believe you are saying the same things when you are both
saying that for this to work there may be more than one way to
do it but all options require
I believe you are saying the same things when you are both saying that for this
to work there may be more than one way to do it but all options require
completely new functionality in implementations (either by implementing support
for new labels types or by implementing new fall back
On 28 Feb 2011, at 09:40, Bob Hinden wrote:
Pete,
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:32 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
I'm sorry, but how could this *not* be posted to the IETF list?
http://xkcd.com/865/
I did a rough calculation and think they would have not run out of IPv6
addresses :-)
I
On 21 Jan 2011, at 14:05, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
No, that was Prague '68
you mean IETF 68 in Prague. Prague '68 refers to rather different events in
this corner of the world.
Joao
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
