Hi,
In the dnssd WG, we are developing methods to enable scalable DNS-based service
discovery, which in practice means enabling mDNS/DNS-SD to work over multiple
links within a site. As defined, mDNS/DNS-SD are link-local protocols, not
forwarded by routers. If successful, one ‘win’ is that
Hi,
On 17 Oct 2013, at 15:09, NomCom Chair 2013 nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org wrote:
A critically low number of people have accepted nominations for some of the
IESG open positions. There is only one nominee per slot in APP, OPS and TSV,
only two in INT and RAI. Many folks have declined
: Proposed WG
Chairs:
Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com
Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Assigned Area Director:
Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
Mailing list
Address: dn...@ietf.org
To Subscribe: dnssd-requ...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnssd
Pre-WG BoF Archive: http
On 7 Sep 2013, at 04:05, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
From: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com
The encapsulation is not much of an obstacle to packet examination.
There was actually a proposal a couple of weeks back in the WG to encrypt all
traffic on the inter-xTR stage.
On 6 Sep 2013, at 21:32, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adam Novak interf...@gmail.com wrote:
The IETF focused on developing protocols (and reserving the necessary
network numbers) to facilitate direct network peering between private
individuals, it
Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour
on this list?
Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago...
Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other
posters, whether new or veteran.
Tim
On 23 Aug 2013, at 18:49, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
and the hotel is fully booked….
I guess it got fixed Bill, though I only booked for the meeting week itself.
tim
/bill
On 23August2013Friday, at 6:36, IETF Secretariat wrote:
88th IETF Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada
On 4 Aug 2013, at 20:53, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
Seems like rough consensus to me.
And the code is running…
Tim
On 27 Jul 2013, at 02:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
The
On 26 Jul 2013, at 07:36, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 09:22 +0300 IETF Chair
ch...@ietf.org wrote:
I wanted to let you know about an experiment we are trying out
in Berlin.
...
But
On 26 Jul 2013, at 21:48, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net
wrote:
POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
this be one of those willful
On 26 Jul 2013, at 23:31, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft
charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is
already agreed
On 24 Jul 2013, at 16:18, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Janet,
I am another remote participant who would like to be able to subscribe to
the meeting-specific mailing list.
I can skip (myself) the ones about coffee and cookies, but definitely want
to read the ones about
On 5 Jul 2013, at 15:30, John C Klensin j...@jck.com wrote:
--On Friday, July 05, 2013 07:40 +0100 l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
It strikes me that 'membership fees' as opposed to 'entrance
fees' could work around this payment issue. Or incur a
different tax...
But the use of a term like
So I was looking at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart to check
the sdnssd BoF text, and was surprised to see a total of 15 proposed BoFs. That
seems to be something of a record?
That people are coming to the IETF with proposals to do work is probably a
healthy thing; it would
On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for
everything else.
The discussion still has to happen
On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:12, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads run
well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response time, ULA
usage, being careful about ULAs
On 27 May 2013, at 05:15, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
The move appears to be related to new, restrictive
regulations the Argentine government has imposed on currency exchanges.'
According to the Telegraph, 'The new regulations required anyone wanting
to change Argentine pesos into
On 27 May 2013, at 16:37, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?
I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting,
excess cash was not a problem. It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash I'd
need, and whatever was left
Yes, thanks all - I think we're nearly there…
Tim
On 13 May 2013, at 02:58, Liubing (Leo) leo.liub...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi, Robert
Your careful review and comments really helped improving the document a lot.
Many thanks to you.
All the best,
Bing
-Original Message-
From:
with
the idea that it would be an informative reference. but yes it's a bit much
to say go read this.
Of course we have to acknowledge it, but maybe we should pull some of its
text
into an Appendix.
Tim Chown, any opinion?
The most recent version (and the one slated for the next
On 6 Apr 2013, at 16:39, Stewart Bryant (stbryant) stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
If the date is
special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
Surely the correct requirement is :
If the date is special
On 6 Mar 2013, at 22:09, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
On 2013-02-27 10:20 Tim Chown said the following:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time
On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
local time zone *anywhere*.
I would
On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:11, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
I agree with the notion that the primary purpose of the meeting is
discussion. What you and I tell those who present in v6ops is that we want
the presentation to guide and support a discussion, and anything that is pure
On 29 Nov 2012, at 18:51, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Ed,
At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to
be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree with that. At
the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled
On 16 Nov 2012, at 13:25, Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Moving the IETF forward will involve reaching out to other peoples,
other regions, and yes, travel farther away once in a while. I also
understand that we need to do our part in terms of fostering and
increasing the
Hi,
My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver. Great
meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
My least favoured venues have been Dublin, Vienna and Maastricht.
Of course, you have to experiment to find good repeat venues...
Tim
.
Tim
On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
Hi,
My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver.
Great meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
My least favoured venues have been Dublin, Vienna and Maastricht.
Of course, you have to experiment
On 3 Aug 2012, at 22:56, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue that I experienced (and why I'm fussing) is that if you were
attending many sessions in the Regency rooms (and moving rooms between
sessions), it was extremely difficult to weave your way through the corridor
On 3 Aug 2012, at 23:38, James Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
To me the exceptional aspects far outweighed the bad things - so I'm chalking
this venue up as one of the best in 13 years of attending IETFs, and a
*serious* contrast to the Paris venue (which I believe was one of the worst -
, or to the Fei Zhang who attends the Vancouver
meeting, so I'm not sure what purpose it serves.
Yoav
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Chown
Sent: 16 June 2012 13:54
To: Joel jaeggli
Cc: IETF Chair; IETF; ietf-boun
If the purpose is simply differentiation of people with the same names, could
we not ask people to enter the last four digits of their IETF registration
number, which would presumably be unique, while being easy to remember? The
number could even be on your badge to always be easy to look up.
On 20 Jan 2012, at 00:37, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
Good suggestion Brian.
I just called our corporate travel department and got the same rate as IETF,
including free Internet and breakfast, and cancel by 6 PM on check-in day.
Nice if you have such a department :)
I booked a room by fax
On 23 Oct 2011, at 18:28, Loa Andersson wrote:
Nurit,
I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right.
If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting
per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless
where you come from. That is if you
On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:58, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
I'm not saying this is the whole problem -- and it would be interesting to
graph US meetings separately -- but the weakness of the dollar has to be a
factor. -- Nathaniel
The graphs are really interesting, but the fact remains you can
On 24 Aug 2011, at 21:58, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Geoff Mulligan geoff.i...@mulligan.com
wrote:
...
You could pick Rosemont, IL (next to O'hare) for every meeting (oops,
sorry - misses on decent food).
Minneapolis or Chicago, one place doesn't make
The room rate I see is 8500 TWD, which is $293 a night. That is a Grand King
room, for 2 people.
If you don't put G-23ET in the corporate/group box, it gets much worse! I'm
guessing the web link on the IETF site should read
Oh, and *after* you book, it says
Additional Charges
10.000 Percent service charge
So the charge is 10% higher than what's displayed. It would be nice if the full
charge was more up front. People checking for budget in advance may be unaware
of this.
Tim
On 23 Aug 2011, at 13:22, Tim
On 22 Aug 2011, at 23:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
+1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
go defensive - it isn't saying IPv4 is evil or anything silly
like that, it's just saying IPv6 is the future.
RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't ready
On 28 Jul 2011, at 21:51, Michel Py wrote:
Lorenzo,
Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
Thanks for the update.
Clarification: in your stats, is AS12322's traffic classified as native
or as 6to4/teredo?
Hi,
I just ran a search through our Netflow
On 27 Jul 2011, at 16:15, Mark Andrews wrote:
Because it will come down to run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug
or not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug. We already have vendors
saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
if it becomes historic.
I would note that
On 27 Jul 2011, at 17:03, Mark Andrews wrote:
0d20eb6-78c9-415d-9493-3aa08faac...@ecs.soton.ac.uk, Tim Chown writes:
a) use 6to4 anyway on an open platform like OpenWRT
Which may or may not still have the code. OpenWRT could remove
support just the same as another source could. OpenWRT
On 25 Jul 2011, at 15:30, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.
Some observations.
Our own users made use of 6to4 maybe 8+ years ago, and at the time it was handy
to have. Today though we're not aware of any of our users running 6to4
On 26 Jul 2011, at 15:14, Tim Chown wrote:
So in summary, in practice 3484-bis and the 6to4-advisory off-by-default will
further reduce what little use there is of 6to4 now, and happy eyeballs will
mitigate any remaining instances of its use that are bad. So whether 6to4 is
tagged
On 7 Jul 2011, at 03:36, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote:
On 7/6/2011 10:38 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Has anyone found a particularly good solution to reading drafts on an ipad?
What about markup and notes on drafts?
The iPad is a porn toy; get a real computer.
You could save drafts
I think this draft specifies a very useful protocol, which we have used at our
site and which has been a valuable multicast debugging tool.
The specification and implementations have evolved over maybe 5-6 years or so.
The implementations we've used have been of various stages of the
On 3 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Gert Doering wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 11:11:43PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
There's clearly a lack of consensus to support it.
There's two very vocal persons opposing it and a much larger number of
people that support it, but have not the time to write a
On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:28, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:02, Simon Perreault wrote:
Not going to argue about San Diego vs Québec, but just going to point
out that multiple carriers do serve Québec. Among them are Air Canada,
United, Continental, Delta, and US Airways.
The
On 18 Jun 2011, at 17:08, John R. Levine wrote:
As far as renting a car, it is likely a very good choice for anyone that is
arriving in Montreal later in the day. I have a choice of one direct flight
to Montreal that puts me arriving in Montreal 7pm.
FYI, there is a direct bus from YUL
On 13 Jun 2011, at 16:28, Noel Chiappa wrote:
If 6to4 has problems, fine, write a document that says something like '6to4
won't work for a host behind a NAT box because the host won't know it's true
IPv4 global-scope address - so you should also not turn 6to4 on by default'
and
I agree the draft should be progressed, so add another +1 to the 'just ship it'
people.
On 9 Jun 2011, at 18:39, Keith Moore wrote:
If pain associated with 6to4 provides an additional incentive for ISPs to
deploy native v6, and for users to use native v6 when it becomes available,
that's a
On 8 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Keith Moore wrote:
Nor, bluntly, is it about a few big content providers or whomever else you
want to label as important. The internet is a hugely diverse place, and you
don't get to dismiss the concerns of people whom you want to label as red
herrings. Again,
On 7 Jun 2011, at 07:33, Gert Doering wrote:
Do we really need to go through all this again?
As long as there is no Internet Overlord that can command people to
a) put up relays everywhere and b) ensure that these relays are working,
6to4 as a general mechanism for attachment to the
Not having any luck connecting - seems to be an issue near the server:
$ traceroute6 www.ietf.org
traceroute6 to www.ietf.org (2001:1890:1112:1::20) from
2001:630:d0:f103:216:cbff:fe8b:752e, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
1 2001:630:d0:f103::2 0.529 ms 0.299 ms 0.321 ms
2
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 07:01:22AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
My personal belief, and the belief of many of have attended meetings
in China is that the fear is unfounded.
When I attended APAN24 in China, I felt the discussions in each session
were very open.
As with the IETF, there was
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 04:19:31PM +0300, Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)
wrote:
Hi,
I think Steve has captured the core of the issue in this mail. I think his
reasoning is the exact reason why we should go to Beijing with a positive
attitude and have a great meetin in Beijing!
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 10:09:56AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
Hmmm... That depends on what you think the shirt means. You imply it
means participation - and I'll vocally resist any definition of
participation which mandates attendance as a part of participation,
since you're implicitly
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 08:49:55PM +0200, Michael Tüxen wrote:
Does others also have a problem in reserving a room
at the Clarion Sign? I get only a generic error message
the the system can not process the reservation and
I should check my data...
You have to enter Stockholm as the location,
And now it's happening for the dnsop list...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:43:27PM -0400, dnsop-honest-requ...@lists.iadl.org
wrote:
Welcome to the dnsop-hon...@lists.iadl.org mailing list!
This mailing list is for IETF DNSOP WG members to discuss IETF
business without improper censorship. It
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:09:22PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
It seems that Vista implements RFC 3484 address selection, including the
requirement to sort IP addresses. This breaks a great deal of operational
dependence on DNS-based load balancing, as well as being based on an
incorrect
Hi,
It would be great if the ietf list could be reminded when the new version
of the rather excellent xml2rfc tool is issued, so we don't need to keep
checking back for it.
Thanks,
Tim
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:03:36PM -0500, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
Greetings. This message is to draw your
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 07:04:27PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
okay. I found myself wondering if the change in address space size, and
in granularity of assignment, might make DNSBLs less reliable. Which is
a different kind of scalability.
IPv6's
Having a single system for all WG lists has the appeal that whatever
process(es) handle the lists, it will be the same for all lists, so
you don't have to figure out how N different lists are run.
As a shameless plug, we have a free open source solution developed here
which is widely used against
Hi,
I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based
IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :)
I'd noticed drafts appearing over the weekend rather than in a batch
batch as usual this evening. Must be welcomed by the RFC editors
too!
Cheers,
--
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:53:37AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based
IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :)
+10
Easy to use, and astonishingly quick release for public access
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
Maybe its not mentioned because its not a practical solution. But
whatever the reason it isn't mentioned, a 25 million user VPN is not
going to happen with 10/8. A comcast person
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Ray Plzak wrote:
The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring.
that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever been
made on the ietf list.
More of an ostrich than a herring?
.==._
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:05:09PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with
PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
To summary: what problem do we try to solve?
either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income
do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while
the i-d live in the automated part of the process?
tim
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 12:29:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to
establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever
patented by someone else.
I have written or co-written a few drafts in the past purely as
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:55:39PM -, John Levine wrote:
... walk from the Palmer House unless it's raining really hard.
... If it's raining,
So there's me thinking Chicago in July will be mid 80's sunshine, and
you mention rain twice in one email :)
--
Tim
Hi,
[non xml2rfc users look away]
I'm seeing xml.resource.org timing out today, and it seems consistent
on one of the two returned IPv4 addresses I see for it (192.20.225.40).
$ telnet xml.resource.org 80
Trying 168.143.123.173...
Connected to xml.resource.org.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:37:26AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much better to be on
IPv4 than IPv6.
If there are any grad students reading the list take a look at the game
theory literature and apply it to the transition.
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:10:16AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
if routing protocols aren't scary enough for you...
http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/fortune/scary_tech/index.html
Unexpected failure modes led to the early withdrawal of IPv5
--
Tim
Isn't he barred from posting here?
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson.
Thanks
--Dean
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why cant the IETF and
Hi,
While I can establish a fast telnet session to port 80:
$ telnet www.ietf.org 80
Trying 2001:503:c779:b::d1ad:35b4...
Connected to www.ietf.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
Attempting to browse via MSIE leads to timeouts.
Connecting explictly to http://209.173.53.180 to assure IPv4 works
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:25:19PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
Hi,
While I can establish a fast telnet session to port 80:
$ telnet www.ietf.org 80
Trying 2001:503:c779:b::d1ad:35b4...
Connected to www.ietf.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
Attempting to browse via MSIE
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:48:10PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
How sure are you these have a MTU of 1500? Best way to test is to do
ping6's in the form of ping6 -M do -s 1500 target and decrementing
per 10 or 20 till it doesn't respond anymore and then increasing again.
19:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
To echo Harald's words from Dallas:
- Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
- This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
- THANK YOU!
In addition, I want to extend my
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 09:29:21PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Tomorrow Saturday June 3 at 12:00am EST, we will be taking down one of
the round robin www servers for the IETF (209.173.53.180) for
maintenance in preparation for supporting IPV6. The outage should be
less than 1
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Having to choose between /60 and /48 would be much better than having
to choose between /64 and bigger in general, as it removes the will
I ever need a second subnet consideration, the average allocation
size goes
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:07:50PM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Thanks to IAD for opening registration (helps with visa requests, although
this is less of a problem in Canada than elsewhere in North America).
Yes, very nice to have the hotel and registration open 3 month in advance
this
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:36:18PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The thing that is good about IPv6 is that once you get yourself a /
64, you can subdivide it yourself and still have four billion times
the IPv4 address space. (But you'd be giving up the autoconfiguration
Interesting discussion.
Keith is hitting all the nails on the head. Phillip seems to suggest
that consumers buy NATs out of choice. They don't have any choice.
I surveyed my final years students last month. Just four have a static
IPv4 allocation for their home network, and only one has more
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 01:54:52AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
If you deploy IPv6 NAT, you may as well stay with IPv4.
You're the one who convinced me some three years ago that there will be
IPv6 NAT no matter what, what's the message here?
I think there will be IPv6 NAT
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
in March 1993. At
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:43:57PM -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
in the
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:35:13PM -0600, Ken Raeburn wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 21:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Mmm... well, my
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:19PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.
I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.
One option however would be to seek
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:46AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
is some amount of precedence for this
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an open interim
meeting you need to determine which
Hi,
Is there any way a non-US citizen can buy one of the promotional 770's
available at the event and walk out with a receipt in their name?
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi,
I guess some people not in Dallas may have missed the news of the freak
local flooding here.
I was downtown with three colleagues and tried to come back to the hotel
around 5.30pm Sunday and hit the huge traffic jam. Our taxi couldn't cross
the freeway to the hotel side because the police
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:43:11PM -0600, Jim Martin wrote:
Gentlepeople,
Yesterday and this morning, we had an issue for the wired and
wireless networks in the Terminal Room area that prevented IPv4 RAs
from reaching the user devices. This has been resolved and we believe
we have
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:45:51AM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays?
Yes there are. Here's the one I use:
http://www.orangeware.com/endusers/wirelessformac.html
There's a fairly long list of supported cards, some of which support
802.11a.
I'm
Hi,
Has there been any discussion in the upper echelons of the IETF about the
issue of Friday sessions?
If you look back over past agendas, it's typically a day with around 3-5
meetings in one session to 11.30am, of which half or more are BoFs.
Is this likely to continue, such that if you're
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
Should be open *really* soon now.
And the hotel info?
(And is the meeting ending 11.30am on
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:52:23AM -0500, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG to
consider the following document:
- 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and
Aggregation Plan '
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:39:18PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Excuse me Stéphane, but I do not find these comments constructive.
Anyone planning an international meeting for 1000+ people has
to take a great many things seriously that you seem to think
are amusing. We had some serious
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
