consensus is leaning in that regard.
Of course, if people have the sense that this isn't a useful line of
inquiry, I'm receptive to that feedback too.
Thanks,
--Brandon
On 07/31/2014 03:45 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi Brandon,
On 2014-7-31, at 21:14, Brandon Williams brandon.willi...@akamai.com
/14, 7:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 09/06/14 14:46, Brandon Williams wrote:
Would you please indicate where the draft proposes a new identifier? If
you are seeing a proposal for protocol changes somewhere in the draft,
editing work is required in order to either clarify or excise
analysis
rfc that discusses privacy considerations and provides the above
guidance for authors of solution drafts, what are you suggesting for the
use cases draft?
Thanks,
--Brandon
On 06/09/2014 10:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 09/06/14 14:46, Brandon Williams wrote:
Would you please
?
Thanks
Michael
--
Brandon Williams; Principal Software Engineer Cloud
Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.
--
Brandon Williams; Principal Software Engineer
Cloud Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.
--
Brandon Williams; Principal Software Engineer
Cloud Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc
submitted by Brandon Williams and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename:draft-williams-overlaypath-ip-tcp-rfc
Revision:03
Title: Overlay Path Option for IP and TCP
Creation date: 2012-12-20
WG ID: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 15
URL:
http://www.ietf.org
list has been more actively engaged in discussion
related to client identification. Still, if I was going to cross-post, I
should have done it with a single thread.
On 12/20/2012 02:16 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 12/20/2012 12:21 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
Dear all,
A new version of this draft
On 12/20/2012 04:04 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 12/20/2012 3:49 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
Hi Wes,
Thanks for your comments.
It looks like I might have managed to make the use of the proposed
option less clear, instead of more clear. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding
the point that you're making
