On 10/7/2013 8:03 PM, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer from Ray Pelletier.
>
> It seems IETF-49 got the highest number - 2810.
>
> 2nd is IETF-46, 2379.
For those wondering where to see a list of attendees by meeting, see
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/past.html
Tony Hansen
On 9/18/2013 8:45 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 17 September 2013 21:10, Tony Hansen wrote:
>
>> Very few people use the uri element in the author block. (I count zero
>> in the currently extant internet-drafts XML files.) Its intended use
>> really is for the author to
tify them. Its usage is directly parallel to a person's postal, fax
and email addresse. So plugging an ORCID into the URI element seems to
fit that usage perfectly.
Tony Hansen
On 8/30/2013 2:37 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> On 8/30/2013 10:46 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>>
>> The document describes a model for reputation services, particularly
>> those being produced by the Repute WG. It follows the recommendations
>> of RFc4101 for describing a pro
wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-repute-model-08
Title: A Model for Reputation Reporting
Reviewer: Tony Hansen
Review Date: 2013-08-29
IESG Telechat Date: 9/12
IETF Last Call Expires: LC for 07 expired on 2013-08
t rfcxx99 series, published along with the rfcxx00 series? Were
they ever formally retired?
After rfcxx00 is retired, can the RFC editor start using both xx99 and
xx00 as normal RFC numbers?
I'm not saying that Pete
Tony Hansen
I sent IANA a list of 45 iana.org URLs found in the RFCs that generate
404 NOT FOUND (along with the number of the RFC(s) where that URL was
found). Amanda said she'd pass the list on to "the redirector".
Tony
On 8/1/2013 2:48 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> Nonetheless, it's an existing URL i
On 6/28/2013 4:53 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I'd actually tried the authors, but no reply yet (only a few days).
>
> For me, a thanks to Tony Hansen, who did the extraction for me. (That makes
> me feel a little guilty, why should he do my work I could ha
Thank you, Fred.
Tony
On 6/25/2013 1:20 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Congratulations, gentlemen.
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:35 PM, IAB Chair wrote:
>
>> Nevil Brownlee,
>> Tony Hansen,
>> Joe Hildebrandt,
>> Bob Hinden,
>>
I'm thinking the enhanced RFC format proposed below should be dubbed
STEAM/PUNC.
Tony Hansen
On 4/1/2013 6:52 AM, Daniel Raft wrote:
> STEAM: BOF proposal for Berlin
> ...
> 2) Finally, preparing for the global deployment of the
> Internet-Enabled Smart Grid (IESG), and to
On 3/14/2013 10:51 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
One thing that I suspect newcomers would also like a pointer to is
http://www.ietf.org/wg/chair-photos.html, and clarity on the use of the data
tracker to identify internet drafts in a working group. This might come down to
a newcomer's page (as
ced in the organization. Is
this still the case?
Yes. However, the pan-galactic plenaries are still sort-of
paid-attention-to by those who are present at the meetings, except for
those totally distracted by the bad-attitude room.
Tony Hansen
e nature of the IETF.
I've always felt that: between the meetings, four months worth of work
gets done, and then during the meeting, another four months worth of
work gets done.
I've found this to be true over and over.
Tony Hansen
ah, the memories ...
Tony Hansen
On 8/16/2012 2:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
People also should be aware that Dallas has major transit and highway work
underway right now in particular North of the airport. By 2015 (2014
actually), you will be able to take light rail (orange line) from the
Huh?
Make tao a directory.
Put the document in the directory as index.html.
Now www.ietf.org/tao will redirect to www.ietf.org/tao/ will redirect to
www.ietf.org/tao/index.html.
Tony Hansen
On 7/4/2012 1:54 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Julian:
No, I was just trying to understand *why* the
Authoritative, no. But definitely referenced by many, many people and
IMO worthy of a certain amount of care.
Tony Hansen
On 7/5/2012 11:57 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, July 05, 2012 23:22 -0400 Tony Hansen
wrote:
I think my point was missed. Section 2 says:
All published
can be
determined later -- it doesn't really matter right now, nor does it
matter right now what the address is.
Tony Hansen
On 7/5/2012 6:02 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
Is there going to be a way of seeing a list of all the versions of the tao? Or
l
s well any proposed update.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
On 7/5/2012 5:19 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Based on many people's input (most recently, John's), I have updated the draft
to more cleanly separate out the history of the Tao from the change that is
happening.
I'm wondering if there needs to be a distinction between "minor updates"
and "major updates". Minor updates would be the typo variety or a URL
change and wouldn't require much review at all. Major updates would
require non-trivial review.
Tony Hansen
On 6/
It would be acceptable to me, especially since there's a link from there
to the tools HTML version. (Look for the "html" link at the top.)
Tony Hansen
On 3/6/2012 9:12 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
I would be much happier with a link to the datatracker HTML version:
https://datat
On 8/31/2011 3:14 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 31, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Hector wrote:
RFC2119 is not unclear on this point.
Correct again, it is not unclear. It says it very clear. I don't know why you
wish to ignore Tony's I-D reinforcing this concept and optional implementation:
SHOULD,
ts on this draft would be appreciated as well.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
On 8/31/2011 9:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
I've been traveling so have not had a chance to do anything but watch
the discussion on a RFC 2119 update.
a few thoughts
1/ I am far from convinced that there is a
I support publication of this RFC.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
On 8/11/2011 9:37 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to
consider the following document:
- 'Message Submission for Mail'
as a Full Standard
The IESG plans
sent to this list with something like "[Discussion]"
or "[IETF]" or something [0].
-1 cause it breaks signatures
This might be mitigated if authentication-results support were added.
Tony Hansen
PS. I do my sorting based on the To/Cc field
Do I hear a call for a morning cookie break?
Tony hansen
On 8/1/2011 5:50 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
+1 with Adam
- Original Message -
From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 04:38 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for
behind the scenes. One of the
requirements for this effort was that it pay strict attention to the
DTD, exactly like the Strict Checking does.
Hope this helps.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.om
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
he first
character
"a" at the 6th level. Specifying "o*" will cause the characters
"o"
and "*" to be alternated for each successive level.
Further information can be found at http://xml.resource.org.
Enjoy.
Tony Hansen
I think this is an excellent idea.
Further discussion of specific improvements and how to accomplish them
should probably be done on the xml2rfc mailing list, as well as
meta-discussions on how to vet ideas for improvement.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
ions to xml2rfc can be more easily made.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ore context: At issue is the use of nroff by the RFC production center,
which *does* manipulate the page breaks through hand tweaking.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
his RFC will be automatically downgraded
to Proposed Standard.
I think both suggestions are in order. +1 and +1
Tony Hansen
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
he above criteria can be
applied.
Of course, there is still an open question what it means to have a
"significant number", which will remain as subjective as it was before
with the 2026 rules.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
umbers.
Note: At least on my linux box, this won't work because nroff is a shell
script that calls groff internally and redirects stderr to /dev/null. So
you have to use groff directly.
Tony Hansen
On 12/21/2010 11:43 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 15.07.2009 11:13, Julian Reschke wrot
On 12/15/2010 12:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Yes, but you can only do that if (1) the author uses the
particular-version URL or (2) the author includes a visited-on note in
the citation. It's lovely, however, that in wiki-based systems you do
have this ablity, and I agree that it'd be nice to
ternal references in Wikipedia
also require the temporal coordinates to be recorded. And for Wikipedia
itself, for any given date and time you can always pull up in the
history what the page had on it right then.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
___
Ie
Use ftp to retrieve them. Set ASCII mode. Your line ending problems
will be solved.
Tony
On 11/10/2010 10:26 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
When retrieving IDs or RFC from the tools.ietf.org or
datatracker.ietf.org the file has only LFs
rather than CR+LF.
Yes, it is easy enough to convert t
If you look at diffs from draft-chandhok-listid-04.txt, you'll find that
the reference name got updated in the References section, but the
references themselves within the text did not.
Tony
On 8/23/2010 4:15 AM, t.petch wrote:
RFC2919 makes reference to [DRUMS] for some of its ABNF but
1/1/2 comes closer to 1/1/1.7 than 1/1/1.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
On 8/7/2010 8:04 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hmm... folding Australia into Asia, Africa into Europe and S America
into N America (for discussion purposes only) that's roughly
1/1/1.7 as a ratio. (Asia/Europe/NA)
The IESG members I know are quite familiar with the requirements of 2026
and are expecting a deployment analysis for going to full standard, but
not a repeat of the interoperability analysis that was already done
years ago.
Tony Hansen
YAM WG co-chair
On 5/18/2010 2:37 AM, Roni Even
For RFCs and I-Ds, I use tools.ietf.org/html/rfc and
tools.ietf.org/html/draft-. An unsung feature of that tool is that
it both displays AND *prints properly*, using CSS to control pagination.
(It's a workaround for what you're complaining about, but it works.)
Tony Ha
Another factor is that the going IETF room rate may include other items
as part of the package. For example, in Hiroshima breakfast was included
in the IETF room rate, but not the "off the shelf" rate. Other amenities
will vary.
Tony Hansen
On 3/24/2010 11:08 AM, joel jae
+5
Tony Hansen
On 3/23/2010 5:17 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Fred, thanks for this news.
By the way, I'm told that T-shirts have been ordered. We should have
the opportunity to purchase them somewhere around here tomorrow or the
nex
and *-01 files, it could even *assume* that it's a
#1-style document.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
On 3/20/2010 6:55 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
+1
Bob Braden
(PS: The IESG has chosen to impose the RFC editing rules on all Internet
Drafts. That always seemed counter-productiv
+1
On 3/17/2010 12:18 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
If we could agree that the final XML was authoritative, and if
necessary let them hire someone to fix xmlrfc so it can produce the
text version without hand editing or postprocessing, that would be a
big step forward.
ge of
managing that entire community?
It seems like there should be a serious presentation of the topic at one
of the upcoming plenaries, with subsequent discussion, with the aim at
coming to a concensus.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
On 3/16/2010 9:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Sp
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration '
RFC 3848 as a Draft Standard
+1
Tony Hansen
t.
FEW moving to FS. I consider this encouraging news. Hopefully we
can chip away at a few more of the logjams.
"More study is needed." -- anon
Tony Hansen
Donald Eastlake wrote:
If you read the definitions and theoretic criterial for Proposed versus
Draft, it makes a
RFC 2026 section 6.2:
6 months from PS => DS
4 months and 1 meeting for DS => FS.
As John notes though, the clock currently begins after RFC publication
time. There's no allowance granted for time already spent in jail.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
James M.
ot;use the current
process better."
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:28, Tony Hansen wrote:
published directly at Draft Standard status
Raise the bar so they stay at I-D level for even longer? A sizable part
of the Internet is run on
r the spec
to be useful, here's an idea for a "revision lite" (the diet version of
a revision): recycle the spec almost totally *as-is*, with a section
added called "Verified Errata". Copy in such errata, attach the
interoperability and deployment reports, and publish.
the idea is that the shepherding files for such I-Ds could include
interoperability reports indicating that they *are* already
interoperable and have successful operational experience, and then be
published directly at Draft Standard status.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
Didn't Harald put up a timer sometimes during open mike?
Tony Hansen
Russ Housley wrote:
I did not take the comment as disrespectful. A timer might be a very
good experiment.
Russ
At 05:53 AM 11/11/2009, Danny McPherson wrote:
Russ, Olaf, et al,
I was serious in my recommend
team. :-)
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
Thomas Narten wrote:
Re: old charters and such.
While poking around earlier this week, I found:
http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/history/
(it is hanging of the WG pages, so not that hard to find.)
It appears to be a snapshot of
I also had to copy rfc2629-other.ent, rfc2629-xhtml.ent and rfc2629.dtd
into the current directory to get it to work. And Firefox seems to be
pickier than IE about the XML it will accept.
Otherwise pretty cool.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Julian Resc
+1!!
Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 1.34pre3 is certainly working for people doing drafts these days.
> 1.33, however, is utterly useless!
>
> Ship it.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
concluded, the YAM WG may
recharter to then reconsider those documents it chose not to immediately
advance.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:24 -0700 Bill McQuillan
> wrote:
>
>>> If an existing protocol implemen
I support this version of the document.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'Internet Mail Architecture '
> as a Proposed Standard
>
the logs that have no
substantive information.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> IETF meeting jabber sessions often hold some very useful gems. And at
>> their
>> worst, each one isn't all that big.
>>
>> It occurs to me that we s
eiver role (Section 2.2.4) correlates with the Recipient role.
I'm not sure what is meant by the <<>> portion here:
Originator<> . This Return handling address (also known
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Going back to RFC 2205,
These rules are specified using Backus-Naur Form (BNF) augmented
with square brackets surrounding optional sub-sequences.
What do you think of BNFO, for "Backus-Naur Form with Options"?
or BNFB, for "Backus-Naur Form with Brackets"?
I support this draft on the standards track.
We look forward to companies starting to use it and already have
implementations for it.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following do
ration
is complete. You should also be looking at that section for other advice.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would like the coded character set to be an official character set of
> the internet because I plan on writing an extension for Firefox
for WHITE lists?
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
> Sadly, I have to agree with Keith. While these lists are a
> fact of life today, and I would favor an informational document
> or document that simply describes how they work and the issues
> they ra
nge controller: IETF
Specification document(s): RFC (this document)
My $0.02.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SM wrote:
>> I can see your point here, but I'm not sure the lack is particularly
>> important. I'd really rather not see us make further cha
IETF Secretariat wrote:
> Registration is now open for the 73rd IETF Meeting!
Kudos on adding these two new questions to the registration form:
T-Shirt Size
Dietary Restrictions?
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mail
I think it would be better to use phrasing like this:
BCP 32 (currently RFC 2606)
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:13 AM -0500 Eric Gray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isn't it a little too redundant to include the pa
One measurement would be the number of conflicts that cannot be resolved
with and without the extra slots.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:15:04AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But please do *design* the experiment - what are
It would be be best if the Fri afternoon slot were filled in early
rather than as the last slots to be filled in. That way people would
have more notice that they're being included in the experiment and
there'd be less of a chance of a rude surprise.
Tony
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On
+1. Does "this is a discuss discuss question" mean that "I just want to
discuss this, it's a nit, don't worry" or does it mean "we ABSOLUTELY
MUST DISCUSS this and nothing's moving until we do!" Without other
context, you don't know.
into play.
It's been suggested that 2821bis revert back to either the implicit MX
description found in RFC 821 or RFC 974, although Glen Anderson had some
suggested improvements to that latter's description that do make it
clearer. Any of these three would satisfy this d
fter people
began hearing stories about people sucking off large masses of email
addresses from the blue sheets and sending spam. Thinking back to the
blue sheets from 7-10 years ago, they used to be quite legible.
I like Olaf's suggestion of adding
e the discussion about one more week and then make a consensus
decision. So speak up now.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 22:41 +1100 Mark Andrews
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>> It
TF-generated efforts.
> ...
> A number of questions come to mind:
>
> 1. What additions or removals should be made to the list?
add MsgTrk
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
courtesy of google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fjp%2Fdownloads%2Fdashboard%2Fnetworking_security%2Fipv420.html+&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
Tony Hansen
rnationalization point of view and
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ned Freed wrote:
>
>> Actually I don't have so much of a problem with having such sections in
>> drafts at review time, but I hate to see them clutter up published
>> RFCs.
>
and use, and its being misapplied somewhere
doesn't make that meaning and usage invalid. I could see a note being
added. However, anything more than that is totally inappropriate.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing li
Arriving early to CZ, I chose this option. It was easy to do (I called
the Hilton and spoke with the concierge), and it was certainly one less
thing to worry about once I got here.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS wrote:
> You can arrange a taxi pick up at
eader field to be
>completely ignored and the verifier to return PERMFAIL
>(signature syntax error). Being "liberal in what you accept"
>is definitely a bad strategy in this security context.
One clarification to this for Pekka, in case he missed it: Se
I have various minor nits with the base document. Overall I consider the
document ready to go; these nits can be taken care of during AUTH48.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Introduction
o archival is not a design goal
All of the other bullet items have full
I use ftp all the time to access the RFCs. I use direct web URLs all the
time to access the RFCs. I *occasionally* use rfc-editor.org's web
interface. I agree with Henrik.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> It may be that the level of detail speci
good point
Fred Baker wrote:
> from the norht american stats. I would encourage you to compare the
> european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation is
> that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be exaggerated.
> Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/
US by itself was about half, and Canada was about another 10%. The
current split of 2/3 in North America and alternating Europe and Asia
once a year still seems to make sense from the stats.
Tony Hansen
Fred Baker wrote:
> That said, I'll remind you of the demographics of this pa
nd only after a given time has elapsed.) If
people are interested in the standard, they should be willing to do the
minor amount of work to keep it from becoming Historic.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eliot Lear wrote:
> Fred Baker wrote:
>> I would like to believe that a well d
subscribed
indicating what the list is about and *how to unsubscribe*.
The lists *should* follow all the standards and good practices for
mailing lists found in RFCs 2369, 2418, 2919 and 3934.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> 4. Having a per-meeting s
de by side. Regenerate the text
in one browser tab pointing at xml.resource.org, do a reload on the diff
tab, repeat until fully baked.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ensible in some working groups. It's been an interesting progression.
One benefit I especially appreciate is being able to find out who some
of the speakers are after they mumble their names at the mike. :-)
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
And *as* one of the authors of the proposed-RFC in question, I find the
statement even more curious. Given the objections, I was proposing
different text that would have aligned the statement with text already
found in other RFCs already published.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED
in the comparable statement in punycode's RFC 3492.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> The license in section 1.1 reads:
>
>Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted
>provided that this document is identi
agreed.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Levine wrote:
>>Here is the revised proposed charter text:
>
> Thanks for pulling this together.
>
> If I had unlimited time to waste, I might niggle about a word or two,
> but it's fine as is, and I look f
question of chartering DKIM?
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I think that this discussion, if followed further, will provide neither
> entertainment nor information to the IETF community.
___
Ietf mailin
nical objectives and the group clearly documents the reasons
for making them.
This text still keeps the bar high for unnecessary changes, was already
vetted through an existing charter, and helped us through a similar
impasse when xmpp was chartered.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROT
le to make good use of the nroff source on
occasion, and the RFC Editors have sometimes (in non-crunch-time
situations) been quite happy to provide that. I'd much prefer having the
source files available at all times so I didn't have to ask them, or
make do without during those crunch times.
text, and then used hand tuning to add in the
comment information.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
> Getting a simulation of XML out can be done simply by doing a
> "save as" from the version of Word included in Office
> Professional 20
not easily accessible; you have to
ask to get a specific copy. I've always been surprised that they haven't
been accessible right next to the .txt files.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
people listening in on the
*audio stream* could hear what was being said.
In larger rooms, the dynamics are much different, and floating mikes
would not work as well.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
James M. Polk wrote:
>
> floating mics are a bad idea for many reasons
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for a good network experience overall this week!
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MERCIER Francois RD-CSRD-ISS wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please note that IETF network shutdown will begin at noon Friday 5th
> (dev
I think this is one of those cases where it's best NOT to have EVERY
last process detail laid in stone. :-)
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
>> John, I don't see any text in RFC 2026 that gives an appeal
>> suspensive effect. However,
t
lost connectivity.
There was a web page posted, http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html, that
goes into details on how to set up jabber and access the ietf jabber
chat rooms from your machine.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I think that a short BCP or the e
There seemed to be problems with jabber.org's server yesterday, but
ietf.xmpp.org was working fine. People who logged in using another xmpp
server to log in with, seemed to get to the rooms okay.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Loughney wrote:
Yeah, I've had tr
ombination quite effectively.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Stats wise, on Monday 187 unique ip's joined 1487 streams over the
course of the day. On Tuesday 136 ip addresses joined 835 streams over
the course of the day.
_
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
