lease often, release Early (post your drafts online and let people
modify it)
Well, so who are we? We are just a group of people who have some
influence in our fields, so we are a force, an Internet Force:
www.internetforce.org
As for ISOC, I don't intend to dissociate myself from ISOC, nor do
we? We are just a group of people who have some
influence in our fields, so we are a force, an Internet Force:
www.internetforce.org
Do you have costumes like the Power Rangers? Have you seen the film
"Delta Force"? That film rocks. Can we be a bit like that? :-)
documents as official
Hey,I like your humour ;) No, No, Really!
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 02:19, Paul Robinson wrote:
> Franck Martin wrote:
>
> >Well as many people hate IP addresses, I have it under a new domain
> >name...
> >
> Well, you've certainly grasped the technologies available then! You're
> clearly a trend-se
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:53:04 -0500
>
> In such context, a more participative behaviour should be
> welcome. Elits should help and educate rather than keeping the
> steering so firmly. RFC aren't they meaning "Request For
> Comments" ? Why did I never find the button "add your comment",
> yet, on a
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:53:04 -0500
> Because that is not how they are updated.
> The RFC faq would a place to seek your ansers.
The original question is : "Why do they not operate that way", if they are
indeed REQUESTS?
w
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcf
--On Thursday, 08 January, 2004 12:50 -0600 Wawa Ngenge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:53:04 -0500
Because that is not how they are updated.
The RFC faq would a place to seek your ansers.
The original question is : "Why do they not opera
Wawa:
Is this a relay of a question from the ISDF list to the IETF list? I don't
seem to have the context of the conversation.
I gather that the question has something to do with the management of RFCs.
It would be good to read the discussion at http://www.rfc-editor.org/ for
what the RFC Edit
http://www.internetforce.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Technology
I put some of your comments there
Hope you don't mind...
Cheers
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 09:47, Fred Baker wrote:
> Wawa:
>
> Is this a relay of a question from the ISDF list to the IETF list? I don't
At 21:45 08/01/04, John C Klensin wrote:
A better answer would have been "the term 'request for comment' is
historical, dating from a time when the preferred way to make a formal
comment on a document involved writing another document, which then was
numbered into the series". That mechanism is
At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
Could it not be useful to have a "List of Comments" (LOC) for each RFC?
Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could
be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experience and questions
received.
These are usually found in the form
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:37:18 PST, Fred Baker said:
> At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
> >Could it not be useful to have a "List of Comments" (LOC) for each RFC?
> >Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could
> >be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experienc
At 00:37 09/01/04, Fred Baker wrote:
At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
Could it not be useful to have a "List of Comments" (LOC) for each RFC?
Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could
be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experience and questions
receive
--On Thursday, 08 January, 2004 23:32 +0100 jfcm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At 21:45 08/01/04, John C Klensin wrote:
A better answer would have been "the term 'request for
comment' is historical, dating from a time when the
preferred way to make a formal comment on a document
involved writing
Folks,
I wrote up a draft,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loughney-what-standards-00.txt which
discusses similar issues. I'd appreciate comments, as I intend on updating the
document soon.
Thanks,
John
-- original message --
Subject:Re: [isdf] Re: www.internetforce.org
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:03:19 +0100, jfcm said:
> is validated. A market standard is the desciption of what works and is
> adopted. We might find this way a fortunate compromise?
Unfortunately, "market standards" often include borken things that are adopted
via forced-feeding. More than one ven
May I suggest you become familiar with the IETF process before commenting
on it? The RFCs on the standards track are generally field tested before
deployment at Proposed Standard, and the various standardization levels
specifically address the issue you raise.
Read RFC 2026.
At 10:03 PM 1/8/20
Thank you. This does answer the question, and is a good example of how to
approach questions in a societal forum like ISDF where even rhetorical
questions may hide a cry for information. Once again, thank you.
w
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, John C
Klensin wrote: > --On Thursday, 08 January, 2004 12:5
I suspect that any approach that was chosen was the result of negotiations
and discussions among those who took part in the discussion at that time.
Any solution would raise questions in a societal setting, since unanimity
is not the norm in a democratic process. The RFC process has extended s
Dear Wawa, John, and colleagues,
Talking about approaching questions in a societal forum like the ISDF...
I am following your discussion but don't feel certain I should write to the
IETF mailing list, so I will only respond in the list where I am subscribed
- the ISDF.
veni
At 19:09 09.1.2004 '
At 02:30 10/01/04, Wawa Ngenge wrote:
I suspect that any approach that was chosen was the result of negotiations
and discussions among those who took part in the discussion at that time.
Any solution would raise questions in a societal setting, since unanimity
is not the norm in a democratic proces
20 matches
Mail list logo
