setting aside interpretation and semantics for a moment, would there be
utility in maintaining tables for each instance of Unicode?
v
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> > I think this is an improvement but there is one i
thanks Ben, input much appreciated - minor comments can be addressed
by the document editor.
v
On Oct 13, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.
Thomas,
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
The notion of including a non-normative mapping document was very late
in the process and the charter just gi
honetically, using a different script, and then selecting the
relevant characters from a menu -- in those cases, the phonetic
representations are typically more than a character or two long
and the menu selection provides an extra check about false
matches).
john
--On Thursday, 03 July, 2008 19:
seems odd to me too, James.
vint
On Jul 3, 2008, at 6:14 PM, James Seng wrote:
At the moment, the condition is "no single Unicode code point." To
the extent that a single CJK ideograph can be expressed using a
single Unicode code point, this would represent the situation to
which you say you
even if WorldCom enters chapter 11, I am confident that UUNET and the MAE Systems will
continue to operate
normally.
vint
At 01:45 AM 7/14/2002 +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
>This is decidedly off-topic for this list, but the current Worldcom
>transit is both backed up by another provider and only te
no KPN is the dutch company that held a joint venture with QWEST and this JV owned
EBONE.
Users were transitioned to a network owned by KPN if my information is correct.
vint
At 10:40 PM 7/11/2002 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>Dear Loyd Wood,
>That E-bone collapse you spoke of a few days a
Discussion list??
vint
At 12:01 PM 5/1/2002 +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
>On Wed, 1 May 2002, vint cerf wrote:
>
>> At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>> > For instance, it could assert that the assumed
>> >state was that inform
At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For instance, it could assert that the assumed
>state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
>assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio.
current copyright law says that from th
i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish to claim
rights should not be prevented from doing so.
vint
At 12:14 AM 5/1/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>however, there seems to be a strong and alarming tendency for global legal frameworks
>on
>IPR to discourage, ra
well, keith since we cannot amend RFCs maybe you should prepare one of your own?
I am not sure that the idea of killing intellectual property is the right one either.
We all know there is something wrong with the current set up but I am no sure that
the wholesale dispatch of Intellectual Property
IP is encapsulated in PPP for all practical purposes. PPP can support
multiple protocols on a single point to point link in the same way
ethernet can support multiple protocols
vint
At 08:01 AM 3/1/2002 -0500, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>Is IP actually encapsulated in PPP, or is PPP and IP sent out a
this formulation does not take into account the transfer
of responsibility and authority for policy increasingly
to NSF and to the so-called Federal Networking Council
after about 1988. NSF's role increased substantially
with the creation of the NSFNET.
In any case the principal point is that the
yes - Phone Net (University of Delaware developed) and the Telenet (X.25)
vint
At 11:03 AM 1/24/2002 -0500, Michael Hammer wrote:
>Quick question: Could one university communicate to another university without going
>through the ARPANET?
>
>Mike
Mike,
actually DCA had only responsibility for the ARPANET
and MILNET, officially. The rest were the responsibility
of the network operators - usually schools and research labs.
In 1981 the CSNET project brought up non-DoD components
including PhoneNet and the X.25 extension of Internet
develope
there is the problem of spoofing that makes this somewhat
more difficult that is outlined below.
vint
At 02:43 PM 4/2/2001 +0800, R.Z. Pan wrote:
>Hi, all:
> I'm a newbie from P.R.China and I do some load balance stuffs. I noticed
>that HTTP Protocol has a redirection mechanism to lead user to
Power corrupts; Powerpoint corrupts absolutely.
vint
At 03:23 PM 3/21/2001 -0500, Mike O'Dell wrote:
>actually the hazard of Powerpoint is to the IETF,
>whether or not airborne
>
>i'd be in favor of a rule outlawing printed slides,
>much less real-time video spew with projectors
>
>but then i'm
my recollection is that we did very little email conversion - but
maybe I am thinking just about ftp?
vint
At 08:33 PM 1/25/2001 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 10:21 PM 1/25/2001 -0500, vint cerf wrote:
>>we never actually did this though
>
>except for email...
>
>
>>
we never actually did this though
vint
At 05:52 PM 1/25/2001 -0800, Peter Ford wrote:
>Ah, dual stacks, a time tested transition strategy. But there was some Application
>Layer Gateway cruft (ALG) although not at the level of sophistication and beauty of a
>NAT ...
>
>From RFC 801:
>
>Becau
a nightmare it seems to me
v
At 02:39 PM 1/20/2001 -0800, Bernard D. Aboba wrote:
>What is worth thinking about is what this will imply for the future
>internet architecture. It is one thing to address issues brought up by a
>single well functioning NAT within the same administrative domain. I
what about business users, bernard?
vint
At 06:47 AM 1/20/2001 -0800, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>The fraction of consumer users behind NATs is largely
>limited by the number of multiple PC households. As
>of 2000, my understanding is that 27 percent of
>households have multiple PCs. Of those househol
keep it simple. roughly: be tolerant in what you receive and
conservative in what you send - (to promote interoperability).
vint
At 05:11 PM 12/7/2000 -0500, Dan Kolis wrote:
>General question:
>Jon Postel got amazing results... Many of the old(er) timers in this
>business must have talked to
Mr. Ohta has put his finger on a key point: ability of all
parties to generate email addresses, web page URLs and so on.
Even if we introduce extended character sets, it seems vital
that there be some form of domain name that can be rendered
(and entered) as simple IA4 characters to assure continu
however the value of the public Internet is surely in its widespread
accessibility and interoperability.
vint
At 05:10 PM 12/5/2000 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
>I think there is a difference between making it technically possible
>for everybody to participate in whatever community they want,
from a purely mechanical point of view, if the character encoding
of these two strings makes them distinct, one might have to treat
them as distinct registrations - unless a very mechanical means of
converting them both into some canonical form were available to
make them "match" - one would imag
In my opinion, it is vital to craft Internet's evolution so as to maintain
full connectivity and interworking among all its parts. I do not see
"balkanization" as a good thing at all. I believe there are sound technical
means to achieve the objective of incorporating character sets associated
with
in the Internet environment, and in particular in the I-D environment,
this could be particularly difficult. Maybe the search engines will help :-)
v
At 11:06 AM 10/1/2000 -0700, Melinda Shore wrote:
>If one were to get anal about it, legally intellectual
>property claims have to be actively pro
Robert,
I think the I-D are explicitly NOT public domain. Even in WG form, they
carry rights held by the author and implicit licenses to the WG for
derivative works. To make something public domain I think you have
to take a fairly definite action or declaration since the most recent
revisions of
I don't think the issue is "weight" as much as it is the
rights to intellectual property contained within the I-D
(and here I mean intellectual property in the most general
sense of the term so as to include copyrights and also
other intellectual property rights).
At least that's where a good dea
the twist between I-D and lab notebook is that the I-D is
often an explicitly shared document (group lab notebook).
Vint
perhaps I-Ds are more like elaborated lab notebooks?
very useful for patent references, reviewing dead ends, partly
explored ideas, etc. One doesn't typically throw away lab
notebooks just because you didn't write a published paper
based on them.
vint
At 12:23 PM 9/27/2000 -0400, John C Klensin
patrik,
would it be useful, in the context of establishing peer-to-peer communications
(or even client/server communications) with limited-function mobile devices,
to use SIP as a framework for negotiating the parameters that should guide the
nature of the exchange? I'm thinking, for instance, of
however, ISTF might be a good place to pursue such ideas.
see www.istf.org or www.istf.isoc.org
vint
At 12:52 PM 9/5/2000 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 11:31 AM 9/5/00 +0200, Barathy, RamaSubramaniam wrote:
>>Would it not be nice to have some sort of quality control task force that
>>assigns
33 matches
Mail list logo
