Ok, Ok, I probably haven't been paying attention, but...
If a device implements a subset of IPv6, (e.g., no IPsec, no mobile
IP), is it generally understood that this device "implements IPv6"?
Has a standard subset of IPv6 been defined for very low-end devices
that simply can't implement a full I
Can anyone point me towards a reference of
Dave Clark [allegedly] saying "don't do
anything in a protocol that you wouldn't
do to Mars"?
(Never mind that TCP isn't likely to actually
be used to Mars...)
Thanks,
-tjs
> To: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned
>
> At 5:11 PM -0500 1/6/02, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list. It returned
> >THREE to me. I
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:24:19 -0600
> From: Chip Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: historical NIC activities report
>
> My enfeebled brain vaguely recalls at one time there were periodic
> reports (quarterly?) posted here that summarized Internet activity,
> including domain processing
> From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:30:30 -0700
> [...]
> (BTW, if you want to reproduce the Minneapolis-in-winter
> experience in Europe, I highly recommend Brighton in February.)
> [...]
Just for the rec
> From: "Rosen, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: rfc publication suggestions
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:57:03 -0500
>
> Just as a practical matter from recent experience.
>
> Usually, an RFC originates as an IESG approved I-D.
> Usually, you don't submit nroff for an I-D.
> The RFC edi
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IETF logistics
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:49:47 -0500
>
> > What we can do for future IETFs is make the current
> > sporadic practice of reserving the front few rows of seats for
> > folks who have actually read the
