> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:22:44 +0900,
> Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think Roy Fielding has expressed the URI side of this
> story way more succinctly than I could ever do. I fully
> agree with him. Below a few additional points.
Overall, his argument seems something like
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:58:08 -0800,
> "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >It would be very confusing for the user to see they can simply reuse
>> >the output of the diagnostic tool in some cases and they need to
>> >convert the output in some other cases.
> Then change the d
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, JINMEI Tatuya / ¿ÀÌÀãºÈ wrote:
- revise RFC4007, replacing the '%'-format with '+'
- accept the "pre-URI processing" approach as a compromise
- if either of them is unacceptable, then we are trying to standard
something useless and should probably discard the attempt it
On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:
At 02:54 05/11/07, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:01:33 -0800,
>> Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> Now I'm surprised to see the new version provides the answer to
>>> questions 1-3 with removing alternative
Hello Tatsuya,
I think Roy Fielding has expressed the URI side of this
story way more succinctly than I could ever do. I fully
agree with him. Below a few additional points.
At 11:17 05/11/08, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:04:13 +0900,
>> Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PRO
Hello Tatsuya, others,
[cross-posting the uri mailing list]
At 02:54 05/11/07, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:01:33 -0800,
>> Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> Now I'm surprised to see the new version provides the answer to
>>> questions 1-3 with removing
Hello Roy,
At 05:58 05/11/08, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:
>> In the latest version of the draft, v1. is used. I think my
>> original proposal was to use v6., because we are talking about
>> IPv6. Roy, others, what was the original intention for the vX
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:04:13 +0900,
> Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> It would be very confusing for the user to see they can simply reuse
>> the output of the diagnostic tool in some cases and they need to
>> convert the output in some other cases.
> An additional idea woul
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:54:18AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL
PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
[...]
> It would be very confusing for the user to see they can simply reuse
> the output of the diagnostic tool in some cases and they need to
> convert the output in some other cases.
I am with you here. A
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:01:33 -0800,
> Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Now I'm surprised to see the new version provides the answer to
>> questions 1-3 with removing alternatives. Have we already made a
>> consensus which I simply missed?
> The sense of the room that I got in P
>My understanding is that we then made a consensus about
>questions -1 and 0 with the answer of "YES", and hence this version.
>(Is my understanding correct?)
Yes.
>Now I'm surprised to see the new version provides the answer to
>questions 1-3 with removing alternatives. Have we already made a
(Assuming ipv6@ietf.org is the right place for this document)
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:50:01 -0400,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Title : Formats for IPv6 Scope Zone Identifiers in Literal
> Address Formats
> Author(s) : B. Fenner, M. Duerst
> Filename
12 matches
Mail list logo
