Thanks Lloyd,
I doubt that we should make commentary on IRTF practices, but you are right that
it would help to clarify "This document applies to the IETF stream only (i.e.,
not the IAB, IRTF, or Independent streams)"
Thanks,
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mai
Randy, Warren,
>> One (IMO) good idea that was mentioned recently (sorry, I cannot
>> remember by whom, may have been Jim Martin) was for someone from the
>> IETF to present a short summary of interesting work at NOG meetings.
>
> this has been done many times. imiho, it has not stirred up much
On 31 May 2013 20:56, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> You are right, Wellington is almost 7 degrees south of Montevideo,
> although I hope it's better served by airlines :D
>
also nearer the equator than most of Europe; a geographical fact of life
that has been conveniently ignored in the discussion
Hi,
I think it's OK to add an informative reference to draft-ietf-nhdp-olsrv2-sec,
which serves as a pointer to the related work going on, and possible
countermeasures to the threats.
best
Jiazi
On Jun 3, 2013, at 07:35 , Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> I personally agree that add
On 6/3/2013 1:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
My main negative comment is that although the draft says it's not a
formal process document, its language in many places belies that.
For example:
...
I'd suggest a careful pass through the text, removing instances
of words like "process", "formal"
Lloyd Wood
> quiet time on a plane can be productive time.
Economy class or something better?
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow
> From: "cb.list6"
> the emergent complex dynamical system we call the internet ... which is
> almost completely zero compliant to the e2e principle. Not that e2e is
> the wrong principle, but ipv4 could not support it as of 10+ years ago.
> Hence, nearly every internet node i
I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the
I-D. I complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged
by editors even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying
not be discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final
comments
Hi Simo,
For the PSTN case the document explain how to construct the m-line PSTN is
used based on the ccap using port 9. This is not specified for the ATM case.
So if it is not mentioned it should be clear that using ccap for ATM is not
specified and need another document
Roni
From: simo.vei
