A small comment in-line.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/7/2013 10:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>> The abstract says:
>>
>> The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work
>> through a consensus process, taking into account the different views
>> among I
Some comments in-line.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 8:36 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> And what are the RFC numbers for the comments? If none, as I suspect,
>> then the comments aren't the same status as the documents--that's fine
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
> > So I'd like to dispute Ted's point that by publishing a version of
> > resnick-on-consensus as an RFC, we will engrave its contents in stone.
> > If that's the case, we have an even deep
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/10/2013 08:03, Ted Hardie wrote:
> ...
>
> > were. On the second point, the truth is that informational RFCs are
> [not]
> > treated as actual requests for comments m
recommendation both to Pete to keep working on these ideas and to the
General Area Director to support a forum for that discussion.
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
anization system (jyutping being more recent). Many names use
folk romanizations, rather than following a specific system.
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The wiki page uses the phrase "WebRTC-compatible browser".
>
For those who know zilch about WebRTC, a list of such browsers
> would be handy. Also a test page for OPUS, since otherwise people
> will have
inorities.
Clarifying that your document is specific to the pinyin romanization is
likely enough (since that romanization is based on Mandarin).
best regards,
Ted Hardie
> 2013/7/11 Ted Hardie
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts. I would suggest, how
ions based
on other dialects, in line with their familial pronunciation, would
otherwise be treated as not "Chinese".
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Hui Deng wrote:
> Hello all
>
> We submitted two drafts to help people here to correctly call chi
king about the move from a 3-stage
process to a 2-stage process, I wrote draft-hardie-advance-mechanics. That
described our then-extent process this way:
In practice, IETF document processing has evolved to a model which
can be described as "objection based processing". A doc
ny, as a way to get early users and quick deployment. But there's a lot
of hooks attached to that lure, and I'd personally advise anyone developing
for WebRTC to focus on native WebRTC apps. Those will be the ones that wow
users and drive us forward.
Again, just my personal view,
Ted Hardie
at won't last forever, obviously, but we have that now and should
continue to take advantage of it while we do.
That's my personal take, in any case, as someone who has been actively
involved in both efforts.
regards,
Ted Hardie
IESG, the IAB or the
community at large.
regards,
Ted Hardie
d approach and see how it works. We
> should fix the setup in advance (duration, metrics, ...), but you
> already know that. It seems to me that it would require just a handful
> of line of codes and little more.
>
>
I believe Suresh is going to propose working on it at the next cod
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Nice post.
>
> I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner
> circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly
> select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the
>
ho are constantly looking for new participants and energy, and
adding this tool may help match that to the skills of volunteers they don't
know.
regards,
Ted Hardie
> though.
> My personal experience in the IETF is that it is really hard to gain some
> 'popularity' amo
thout that person having to fit within one
of the established human networks.
There are other methods that may well be better than the two Suresh and I
discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that may
help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of this
need not be quotas. It should be a better environment for all of our
volunteers.
best regards,
Ted Hardie
out both case studies and at least a few pointers to the
relevant data protection requirements for collecting data deemed to be
"sensitive".
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:18 AM, IETF Administrative Director
wrote:
>
> The IETF is concerned about diversity. As go
group chairs and other positions. By picking competent candidates
from a variety of backgrounds, we encourage participation by those
with those backgrounds; that can be more important than a strict
stack rack among the competent candidates.
Just my personal two cents,
Ted Hardie
does not in practice have a
> way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements are.
Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this?
regards,
Ted Hardie
the volunteer body
charged with testing for that and reacting. Its view, not the
incumbents' views,
should be the deciding ones.
Note: I've served on confirming bodies, but not the NomCom, so I am not
speaking from personal experience.
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Ted Hardie wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature
> of
> > 'the Internet', and they always will be (even
te round. I
personally want to thank Lynn and the Internet Society staff for all their
advocacy, as well as those IETF participants who were at WCIT with national
delegations. It is, of necessity, arduous work, but well worth both the
effort and the thanks of our community.
regards,
Ted Hardie
start tracking implementations, it might be useful to get that data back.
regards,
Ted Hardie
Hi Stephen,
Some further comments in-line.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> On 12/05/2012 05:22 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > Reading through Stephen's draft and the discussion to date, I think there
> > is some confusion/disagreeme
Reading through Stephen's draft and the discussion to date, I think there
is some confusion/disagreement about what it is having an implementation
at this stage signals.
One way to break up the work of the IETF is:
Engineering--making decisions about the trade-offs related to
differe
thinking about that, and I don't have much more to say on it right
now. There were a couple of other questions you asked that I answered
in-line.
> On 11/8/2012 2:46 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> But really, Ted, where does your idea come from, that the issues with our
> current oper
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> So, for myself, as the importance of the work an organization does, the
> maximum I am willing to trust anyone with regard to process issues
> decreases significantly.
> This is not a negative statement about any office holders, past, current
>
valuating process changes. That may help us work out what efforts
are worth the time and effort not just for the IETF, but for the
Internet.
regards,
Ted Hardie
st IETF
participants, this no doubt seems a bit trite or even silly. But
there are times when it is important to say things out loud, and this
may be one of them. If we are considering why change in the IETF
increasingly looks like ossification and if we are considering how to
fix that, we should keep our mission in mind.
My two cents as an individual,
Ted Hardie
f IMMEDIATELY. I don't
believe the NOTE WELL should disagree with the BCP on that point. If
this changes, it should change in the BCP first/simultaneously.
regards,
Ted Hardie
ss), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF)."
That puts the most important information higher up the text and, to my
eyes at least,
makes it more prominent.
My two cents,
Ted Hardie
>
> === Propo
nsufficient". That doesn't eliminate the right of
appeal (someone filing one may raise and issue that the Board didn't
consider), but it does mean that there is some context when appeals
occur.
It may not be strictly required, in other words, but it is a good idea.
My two ce
e different operations the, as
I have noted before, you really should use different terms and admit
to the fork.
My personal opinion, as has been noted,
regards,
Ted Hardie
osing to redefine IETF
standards is not contributing to a better web; it's simply making it
less clear for those outside the small cabal of standards workers what
they should do when faced with a URL. Un-marked context shifts are
likely, and likely to be bad. Avoiding them by picking a new term is
both easy and appropriate.
My personal opinion, as always,
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> >
>> > I couldn't agree more! We've been waiting for four years for the URI
>> > working group to get their act together and fix the URL mess. Nothing
>> > has happened. We lost patience and are now
may be
inappropriate. Such claims would be damaging to individuals, their
sponsors, and to the IETF process. The IETF reminds all IETF
participants of their responsibilities so that they can avoid
discussions which might be understood to be collusion or otherwise
anti-competitive."
regards,
Ted Hardie
g to me at that point.
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream
>> (documents identified as irtf or IAB).
>> b) Relevant AD for WG documents
>> c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put
>> the matter to the IESG.
>
> At leas
i Adrian,
That's true, and if the existing author wants to do that, this policy
is not needed at all. The question is who needs to approve a request
to remove it if it does not come from the author. Sorry that this was
not clear.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>
>> -Original Me
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair wrote
> The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are
> solicited.
>
> On behalf of the IESG,
> Russ
>
> --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
>
> SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
>
> Internet-Drafts (I-
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:17 AM, David Morris wrote:
> One of the ways we deal with SPAM and DOS attacks is to intentionally slow
> the process. Ted's proposal would be vastly improved with the provision
> that access, once authenticated, was delayed approximately the same
> amount of time as the
access, but they are not broadcast?
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
> We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough
> on this topic. The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions:
>
> (1) Rough consensus:
hnology, Engineering, Math"
or it can be "working group leadership" or "the IETF". But a bigger
pool of talent to draw from is a big win for almost any sized field.
regards,
Ted Hardie
For those not aware of it, there is a long-standing mailing list for
LGBTQ participants in
the IETF: ietf-mo...@lists.pensieve.org (with subscription at
ietf-motss-requ...@lists.pensive.org).
About the IETF-MOTSS List:
- --- -- -
This list is for use by members of the IETF-MOTS
tendee list and blue sheets
together took care of this requirement. If these need to be
aggregated, then I would personally go back to the "lazy way" you
describe--a scan of the blue sheets included as part of the
proceedings associated with the plenary. I see no reason for more
state than that.
regards,
Ted Hardie
meeting.
Explanation please?
thanks,
Ted Hardie
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM, IESG Secretary wrote:
>
> The co-chairs have arranged a virtual meeting for Mar 24, 2012.
>
> As per process, an agenda will be announced by one week before the event.
>
> This is scheduled f
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue
> here. As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying
> in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards
> implementations. The issue we're
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
> But (also realistically) a "sufficiently large enterprise" that uses all
> of RFC1918 is not going to be sitting behind a CGN...
>
> W
>
> Big enterprises buy small ones; sometimes at a great rate. Imagine an
enterprise that uses this /1
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:44 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Assume that no vendor in its collective right mind would deploy
> new address translation gear (or firmware) that couldn't cope
> with having addresses from the same pool on the "inside" and
> "outside" and that we are willing to let the
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 22:07, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > No, I think that premise is mis-stated. Premise 1: There exists
> > equipment that can't handle identical addresses on the interior and
> > exterior interface. Premise 2:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> **
>
> I wrote a response to Brian's original statement then deleted it because I
> assumed others would ignore it as clearly last minute and ill-researched.
> Apparently, that was wrong. There are enterprises that currently use
> 172.16/12.
Notes below.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> **
> Daryl,
>
> The problem described in the draft is that CPEs use 1918 space *and that
> many of them can't deal with the fact that there might be addresses on the
> outside interface that are the same as on the inside interfa
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
> Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in
> order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one?
> Because it has become best practice in other SDOs? Because the insurance
> agent wishes to see
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
> have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
> way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial
> draft, and then
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Time for the facial hair standard and ensuring that there is a proper three
> stage progression from provisional salt and pepper to full blown white out.
>
> /Elwyn
>
>
I think you missed Eric's proposal for a one-step "Balding is Common
Prac
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-07 00:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On 2011-09-07 09:35, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> My personal opinion for some time has been that we ought to recognize
>>> that
>>>
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> The document doesn't actually say out loud there that the requirements for
> Proposed Standard have been considerably increased by IESG practice over the
> years, nor does
I actually have a lot of sympathy with Andrew's formulation, largely because
the document wants you to infer something rather than making it explicit.
Take this text:
2.1. The First Maturity Level: Proposed Standard
The stated requirements for Proposed Standard are not changed; they
remain
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:47 AM, David Endicott wrote:
>
> ActuallyI wasn't talking about the Host: header - that is totally
> spoofable...I was concerned about:
>
> 1. Browser client resolves example.com via old style DNS to x.x.x.x and
> fetches HTTP
> 2. Received HTML starts JS which start
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> I strongly object to this text in Section 5:
>
> 2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
>a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
>document as Proposed Standard.
>
>
> Section
re to the new
"Proposed Standard" vision. As a new WG Chair, I plan to push that vision
for my own group, and I hope that the IESG will support that effort as this
document intends.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
hat the "Athens Affair" which Dean mentioned at
the start of this thread is a useful, real-world example of how true
those conclusions are. The additional complexity of a wiretapping
system present in an AXE created security vulnerabilities that simply
would not have otherwise been prese
s, an move
blank into it.
I hope this is clear.
best regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Howdy,
Some further replies in-line.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 21.01.2011 17:57, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> Howdy,
>> ...
>>>
>>> Reminder: the reason this was written down was so that
>>> "about:legacy-com
Howdy,
Some comments in-line.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 21.01.2011 02:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> But the reality is that the behavior resulting from these URIs is totally
>> non-deterministic and varies from context to
XML namespace?
Additionally, naming a change controller should generally be a bit more
precise than an organization name. The W3C director or TAG seems
more appropriate than just "W3C".
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM, SM wrote:
> At 07:56 14-01-11, The IESG wrot
Scott, Sam, and Glenn rightly pointed out last night that my comments
at the mic were
long on rant and short on substance. My apologies to the community for that.
I committed to provide more substantive comments; in order to meet the
time limits
Olaf noted, I have provided a first draft in plain
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Randy Presuhn
wrote:
>
> Ironically, the more we emphasize improving the "quality" of RFCs, the more
> we reinforce the myth that all RFCs are standards. I higher percentage
> of obviously immature, speculative, or even outright garbage documents
> might help dis
is
really an issue between
the IESG and the community. Everyone is looking for a way forward
that meets the
community's needs.
Just my two cents,
regards,
Ted
> -hadriel
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> As is moderately obvious from the strea
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:17 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> However, a change to the handling of documents that are
> candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of
> the IESG. In principle, they could announce tomorrow that any
> document submitted for processing after IETF 79 woul
As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at
the root of all this. One way to draw this is:
Issue: Documents are too slow in achieving the first rung of the
standards process
Contributing issues:
->WG formation
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> As a metric, once a working group has decided to issue a new Internet Draft,
> it takes almost no time to issue it. Assuming no format hiccups, it's
> minutes.
The reality is that Internet-Drafts have become an archival series. While the
rity-levels has more support.
I'm assuming that the "other proposal" you mean is
draft-hardie-advance-mechanics;
if I missed a different one, please correct that mistake on my part.
First, I'm not sure that the two actually compete, except in that the community
might be unwilli
Howdy,
The charter below has the following text:
"The group may also create documents that describe how protocol entities
can discover and validate these bindings in the execution of specific
applications. This work would be done in coordination with the IETF
Working Groups responsible for the pr
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
>> tipped over the "diff" line somewhere. That is, as a set of edits it is
o build up the correct state with the two
documents;
it is just more difficult.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
o build up the correct state with the two
documents;
it is just more difficult.
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Comments inline, some content snipped.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> While this is true as far as it goes, I'd like to point out a good
>> example of where "the common case" may be less common than we'd like
>> to think.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>Those are the very people who need to be involved in cleaning up the
>specification, but (depending on market conditions) they may see it as mostly
>benefiting their competitors.
>
For protocols where interoperability with others' implementa
Thanks for the comments, some replies inline.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:39 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Ted,
> At 16:25 16-09-10, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> The attached draft is part of the discussion Russ started up
>> with draft-housley-two-maturity-levels. It is compatible with,
considering it.
Adapting the discuss criteria (or something like it) would be useful guidance,
and it this gets sufficient traction, it certainly could be done.
Thanks for reading the doc,
regards,
Ted
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 9/16/2010 8:53 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomson, Martin
wrote:
>> The current process involves a (weak) proof of interoperability to
>> advance; interoperability is not even mentioned in this draft. Is that
>> rather significant change intentional? Or did you want negative
>> interoperability reports ("V
place here.
regards,
Ted Hardie
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Subject: I-D Action:draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title
second last call will
be necessary as
a result.
Some further discussion in-line.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Christer Holmberg
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The purpose of this e-mail is to address the secdir comments given by Richard
> Barnes and Ted Hardie. Due to summer vacations, sta
o "Track the network usage on a per attendee basis", the attendees
really need to know whether that is because that was the real requirement
all along or because the IETF management failed to provide a realistic
alternative that met the stated goal.
best regards,
Ted Hardie
__
uld have said more simply? Are
>there
>things it left out? Are there things it should not have included?"
Would a pointer to the W3C's help? It is actually a collection, found here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement-2612
regards,
Ted Hardie
___
construct your statement above as either "to publish elaborations"
or "to publish understanding of the privacy sensitivity of specific data",
I think we're in agreement.
regards,
Ted Hardie
> Alissa
>
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
the
meeting.
My personal preference is that this requirement from the host be
politely declined as contrary to the usual operation of the IETF
network. But if it is not going to be declined, then the admission
control should not further the ability to associate specific
creden
In-line.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Christer Holmberg
wrote:
>
> Hi Ted,
>
>>I join Richard in believing that this document makes changes
>>beyond that which could be understood as "updating" the MSRP
>>URI scheme processing.
>>
>>To highlight one particular aspect, RFC 4975 does not requir
ards,
Ted Hardie
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
> comments were written primarily for the bene
be posted in advance for a two week
> period for comments from the IETF community.
I note that it is common to have a higher bar than simple majority for
changes to things
like by-laws. If these were just administrative procedures, simple
majority with
two week notice would be fine. But
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
>> we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> We need all the volunteers we can get.
>
> I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
> maximizi
one has already made the
calculus of how much to attend seems likely to leave a bad taste in
the mouth of at least some participants, and that may discourage
them from being NomCom volunteers, both now and in the future.
We need all the volunteers we can get.
Just my two cents,
Ted Hardie
>
>
ot be
> able to read the 140+ page appeal until the IESG Telechat is over.
>
> Thanks for your reader's digest version.
>
> Russ
Fair enough; good luck with the effort to clear.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>
> On 3/10/2010 6:20 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> Hi Russ,
>>
understanding of the actions requested of
the IESG?
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here:
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf
>
> JFC Morfin included these comments
he problem; for media types which do not, you're left
with relying on some other context mechanism kicking in.
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Biju wrote:
> Please let me know if I am asking this question on wrong list.
>
> * Is there a way to specify http header
some contexts
and fails utterly in others, based on the silly domain name tricks pulled on
a per-application basis. But we can't find that out easily without an agreed
upon way of trying this.
Maybe that makes this an experiment; maybe it makes it a likely-to-be-ephemeral
best current practice
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> At 14:16 21/12/2009, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> I have not objection to the creation of sink.arpa, but
>> I will repeat comments I made on the NANOG list
>> that there are ways of accomplishing the same thing
1 - 100 of 322 matches
Mail list logo
