And for the most part, we have had decent success with self certification in
SIP and VPIM, as two examples.
On Nov 12, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>> I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
>>> implementations represent a significant Internet deployment
Hi, Ned,
Russ,
> Dave:
>
> This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
> mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
> weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
> allowing the community to support or challenge them.
>
>
Russ,
> Dave:
>
> This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
> mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
> weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
> allowing the community to support or challenge them.
>
> Russ
Tha
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> I -- since I'm the editor of the doc, I get wording blame -- took it as
> a given that "widespread use" required interoperability. And I wish
> I could say that you were the first to notice the potential hole is our
> existing language. (In fact, it took some iterations b
On 11/12/2010 2:17 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
The result of the mess is that most browsers these days have given
up entirely the concept of SSL/TLS interoperability and use a heuristic
of reconnect fallbacks_at_the_application_level_, i.e. try a protocol
feature, run into one of those interop proble
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> A hallway conversation with Russ added an item that simply had not
> occurred to me:
>
> There might be multiple implementations that rely on on undocumented
> modifications of the spec. This means that an additional, interoperable
> implementation cannot be made pu
I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
based on the specification in RFC:
-
-
-
- ...
wfm.
and seems very reasonable to me as well...
Spencer
___
On 11/11/2010 7:10 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
based on the specification in RFC:
-
-
-
- ...
wfm.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Inter
>> This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
>> mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
>> weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
>> allowing the community to support or challenge them.
>
>
> If I understand both you
On 11/11/2010 4:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge th
Russ,
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
Thank you for the h
On 11/11/10 2:47 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Test language: (*)
>
> (Full) Internet Standard:
>
> The Internet community achieves rough consensus -- on using
> the multiple, independent implementations of a specification
>
> and
>
> 3.3. [Full] Internet Standard (IS)
>
>
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
> Folks,
>
> On 11/11/2010 1
Folks,
On 11/11/2010 12:25 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
To establish the base: It is not possible to achieve widespread use on the
Internet without having multiple components interacting. That's called
interoperability.
However, the interoperability might be among components that are clones of a
sin
On 11/11/2010 11:14 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
(Full) Internet Standard: The Internet community achieves rough
consensus -- on using the running code of a specification.
This causes me pause, because it does not say that the RFC was sufficient
to produce interoperable implement
Dave:
The document says:
(Full) Internet Standard: The Internet community achieves rough
consensus -- on using the running code of a specification.
This causes me pause, because it does not say that the RFC was sufficient
to produce interoperable implementations.
Perhaps this i
All I did was a forward of what was sent over ietf-announce.
d/
On 11/10/2010 7:24 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Dave, can you please fix/change/report to the vendor that your MUA as it is
not producing valid mime. My MUA reported this as being broken.
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
Hi,
I could live with this. I could live with draft-housley-two-maturity-levels.
I could also live with draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage (2003), or
draft-atkinson-newtrk-twostep (2006), or even draft-carpenter-newtrk-twostep
(2005).
For that matter I could live with draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fi
In message <4cd967ad.80...@dcrocker.net>, Dave CROCKER writes:
> Folks,
>
> A few of us have formulated an alternative proposal for streamlining the IETF
> standards process. We hope that it at least adds to the mix of discussion in
> the community.
>
> d/
Dave, can you please fix/change/rep
Folks,
A few of us have formulated an alternative proposal for streamlining the IETF
standards process. We hope that it at least adds to the mix of discussion in
the community.
d/
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action:draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 201
20 matches
Mail list logo
