Irrepressible
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:19 AM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ietf; tools-disc...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update
But they have different ages, IQs, and shoe sizes.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:54 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred)
Cc: ietf list; Nevil Brownlee; Bob Hinden;
AB,
This may surprise you, but not everyone cares what you think.
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 8, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Routing Area AD,
I had many comments/issues regarding your area always addressed to you
and including this
What a concept.
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:52 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
On 4/29/13
Age, IQ, shoe size? (Ideally, they should be equal.)
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Eliot Lear
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:01 AM
To: Dan Harkins
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF
AB,
Is it true that you are really Professor Irwin Corey?
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:51 PM
To: ietf
Subject: Re: IETF Diversity Question
Smoke filled rooms
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
David Kessens
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:04 AM
To: Stewart Bryant
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new
See also:
http://www.akamai.com/html/about/press/releases/2012/press_091312.html
Irrespectively Yours,
John
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cameron
Byrne
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:12 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: bra...@isi.edu; IETF-Discussion
Eric,
This was exactly the point I made earlier in an email to Dave Crocker.
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Eric Gray
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:59 PM
To: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net
Mary,
As a potential nominee I considered the questionnaire to be a barrier to entry
and as a NomCom member I considered the questionnaire answers to be useless.
Irrespectively Yours,
John
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Comment inline
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:00 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: John E Drake; i...@iab.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards
Sent from my iPhone
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:25 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: i...@iab.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
John,
On 8/15/12 12:03 AM, John E Drake wrote:
Hi,
Does this document
Comment inline
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:38 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; Brian E Carpenter; Eliot Lear; i...@iab.org;
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Affirmation
Eliot,
Your explanation of the document’s efficacy leaves me skeptical. We should
always do something for a reason.
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:44 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: i...@iab.org; IETF Discussion
Subject
for
MPLS-TP.
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:29 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Hi John,
Does this document actually have a purpose
: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:57 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: ietf; i...@iab.org
Subject: Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
John,
Could you suggest a solution to this issue or an additional statements to the
document
...@gmx.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:33 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; Brian E Carpenter; Eliot Lear; i...@iab.org;
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Hi John,
On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:41 PM, John E Drake wrote:
JD: To what
Hi,
Does this document actually have a purpose, and if so, what is it?
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of IAB Chair
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:19 PM
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: Affirmation
Maybe we would do better if we required attendees to dress as furries. Their
conventions seem to attract a younger crowd.
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Phillip Hallam-Baker
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012
Hi,
I agree with the proposal that Russ Housley made, below, but before even
provisionally granting G.8113.1 a code point by placing draft-betts in the RFC
editor's queue until G.8113.1 is approved, I would like to understand whether
there is a reasonable chance for it to be approved at WTSA
Snipped, comments inline.
3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document
should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for
progressing it as AD sponsored. As far as I can see, the main assertions to
answer are as follows. Do you have a view
Huub,
In your email, below, you state:
This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be considered to be
a MPLS protocol and therefore should not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929.
The subject protocol is used to provide OAM for MPLS networks. You seem to be
saying that
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Robin Whittle
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:07 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
Hi Masataka,
I mean no offence. I try to keep my messages
: erminio.ottone...@libero.it [mailto:erminio.ottone...@libero.it]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:50 PM
To: John E Drake; Luyuan Fang (lufang); Alexander Vainshtein;
D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo; Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: R: Re: [mpls] unresolved technical
Alessandro,
Apparently, the advice given regarding the risks and costs associated with
deploying proprietary or pre-standard solutions didn't resonate with you. Do
you really expect the rest of us to clean up after you?
Thanks,
John
-Original Message-
From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org
Snipped, comment inline
You are making a point on which I picked earlier because it is stated
in the
document as well. In case there are multiple solutions, documenting,
but at
the same time discouraging the other one has happened before. Why is
this not
possible in this case? Make
Are we now going to be subject to daily updates?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Huub van Helvoort
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 7:42 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call:
As do I
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
David Sinicrope
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:11 PM
To: David Allan I
Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-
That's because it is *so* much easier to just keep mumbling 'major unresolved
technical concerns'. I expect it is something learned in Yoga class.
-Original Message-
From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Luyuan Fang (lufang)
Sent: Wednesday,
How about Fresno?
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:09 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?
On 25/08/2011 18:12, Mary
...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:17 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein; m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Vladimir
Kleiner; Idan Kaspit; Mishael Wexler; pwe3; Oren Gal; John Shirron;
Rotem Cohen
Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] IETF Last Call comment on draft-ietf-pwe3-
gal
Sasha,
I completely agree with your recommendations:
- releasing the bottom-of-stack requirement on GAL
- making use of the statement in RFC 5586 that if GAL is encountered in a
packet then G-ACh header MUST be present immediately after the bottom of the
label stack (and not immediately after
Italo,
Comments inline.
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: erminio.ottone...@libero.it [mailto:erminio.ottone...@libero.it]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:04 PM
To: John E Drake; david.i.al...@ericsson.com; rco...@ptinovacao.pt;
i...@ietf.org; IETF
Italo,
The design team report
(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mpls-17/mpls-17_files/frame.htm),
with Huub's name as an author, details a plan for MPLS-TP OAM which the MPLS WG
has followed to this day. I think the report is compelling evidence that the
claim that a packet
Italo,
Comments inline.
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: erminio.ottone...@libero.it [mailto:erminio.ottone...@libero.it]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:04 PM
To: John E Drake; david.i.al...@ericsson.com; rco...@ptinovacao.pt;
ietf@ietf.org; IETF
Neil,
I have a question for clarification. Have you actually read
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt? I know you don't like doing this but
generally it is considered good form to read something before commenting on it.
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From:
but it is strictly an implementation
issue - no protocol work is required.
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: neil.2.harri...@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harri...@bt.com]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 6:37 AM
To: John E Drake; rco...@ptinovacao.pt; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
But that was then and now is now 8-. One could simply say suck it up.
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Henk Uijterwaal
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 6:55 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Has anyone found
Hi,
I think we should be sad, though, that Huub's feelings were hurt when the team
was disbanded.
Here is the liaison to the ITU describing the disbanding of the design team:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/593/. Interestingly, I can't find a reply
from the ITU. This implies they
An I-D usually needs to get WG consensus before it becomes a WG draft. Getting
consensus from the wider community at this point, as you suggest, seems very
reasonable. In my experience, once a document is issued as an RFC, it is
considered to be a standard. The steps beyond that are largely
Tom,
Thanks, this is very helpful. As I read RFC 5680, it does not change in any
way the handling of confidential information (e.g., feedback on candidates, or
its deliberations) specified in RFC 3777. Is that correct?
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From:
You, or a visa company on your behalf, will be asking the Chinese consulate for
a visa and as part of the application there will be an explanation of your
planned activities in China. The consulate will decide whether the type of
visa requested is consistent with your planned activities and if
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On May 5, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Varma, Eve L (Eve)
eve.va...@alcatel-lucent.commailto:eve.va...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Dear editors,
In reviewing draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk, I noticed that in Section 4.7.4,
Triggers for the Linear Protection Switching Action, the
43 matches
Mail list logo
