Fine with me.
On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> On 3/28/13 1:17 PM, SM wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>> At 05:13 28-03-2013, Burger Eric wrote:
>>> Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer
>>> it would be better to say w
Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer it
would be better to say what we mean, like:
The IMAP interface MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities that modify the
underlying message and message metadata, such as mailbox, flags, marking for
deletion, etc. If
Never say retired: he *is* qualified to be TSV AD.
On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Ralph also served as Nomcom chair 2005-2006 and past chair advisor 2006-2007!
>
> Mary.
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> I wanted to give recognition to someone. As Ra
I think Michael's point is that because a BOF only has two shots, people trying
again do NOT go through the open, advertised process and thus end up with
closed meetings where people are (almost always INADVERTENTLY) not invited. It
would be more open and transparent to have these meetings on th
third tier often
have considerably better connectivity than one would expect.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:54 AM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
> Let me relate my *EXPERIE
I would offer the following:
Rather than look at extremes (e.g., Fred's "What about Kabul?"), let's
look at other "second tier" options, like Bangkok, Prague, Cairo (well,
maybe off the radar for the next few months), or Mexico City, to pick
well-connected, well-airported, rather inexpensive, citi
I would offer that it is easier for me to get to London, Paris, or
Frankfurt from New Hampshire than it is to get to San Diego. LAX is
marginally better.
Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Las Vegas (!) are my
easy, one-hop cities. That said, it was fun driving to Montreal :-)
---
Send me an e-mail directly if you are interested.
Like Spenser, for cost ($35 US), for cash US, Canadian is good...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
What we do in lemonade is both.
We schedule two 2-hour meetings. The first is for a review of what work
is going on, what issues we are facing, and broad approaches to solving
them. The second is a high-bandwidth working group session, much like
the dreaded interim.
Note that we have also had m
Standard Time
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:18:40 -0400
"Burger, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would offer that in *some*
I would offer that in *some* groups the running code bar is reasonable.
For example, in SIPPING, the problem space is pretty well-defined, and
there are third-party specifications and requirements out there. There
have been way too many half-baked ideas floated for consideration, and
that has suck
The bottom line is there has to be a return-on-investment for the
sponsors. Microeconomics works, believe me. If we do the socialist
thing and try to bend the market (impose a bunch of impossible to follow
rules), then we're either not going to get funded or we are not going to
be happy with the
This is exactly what we do in lemonade. We have 1-3 editors, with the
possibility of the "cast of thousands" authors (contributors).
I would challenge you to find five document that were WRITTEN by more
than 3 editors. I offer five, because I am sure that out of ~5000
RFC's, it is statistically
Anyone interested in carpooling to Montreal for IETF 66?
I will be leaving the Nashua, NH area around 9am on Sunday, 9 July. My
route will take me by Dartmouth (US I-293 (Manchester) -> I-93 -> US
I-87). I will have room for 5-6 people. Because it is too complicated
for me to break it out, Cant
COUNTER-example. Sorry I didn't make the smiley larger.
-Original Message-
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tue Jan 10 18:23:55 2006
To: James M. Polk; Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Working Group chartering
--On ti
the IETF.
-Original Message-
From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Working Group chartering
Eric,
--- [SNIP ---
--> IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on
--> a
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work.
We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working
code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't
work, but then
MAY search the entire archives rather easily?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: lemonade@ietf.org; ietf-imapext@imc.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [le
In Vancouver in the lemonade work group meeting a number of people
expressed interest in the creation of a list dedicated to the discussion
of user notification technology.
This list is for discussions relating to the requirements, definition,
and directions for message notifications.
While many
Wouldn't having quasi-authoritative translations *result* in
balkanization? The Chinese National Standard series comes immediately
to mind of authoritative translations *with interpretations*.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JFC (Jefsey) M
20 matches
Mail list logo
