Is this the document with the proposed SOW?
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
saying that you should not use the Office suite to write it,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote participants who
> receive credit for their participation equal to that of being local.
>
I understand the rationale here, but I'm nervous about any movement toward
a kind of "pay-to-play s
On 8/12/13 11:36 PM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> Anyway, I use Linux, so I guess I will not be able to give my input about it.
I agree in principle (MS document formats are not a suitable document
exchange format for an open standards body) but in truth, it's been
awhile since Open Office hasn't
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> 10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote participants who
>> receive credit for their participation equal to that of being local.
> >
>
> I understand the rationale here, but I'm nervous about any mo
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format
>whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code
>size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need
>for version negotiation. These design goals make it
Hi Murray,
At 10:36 AM 8/5/2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
RDAP is far from the first protocol specification to exist across
multiple RFCs, so this approach isn't uncommon. That said, I take
it you believe the material here should be rolled into one of the
other documents?
Yes.
Correct, t
Hi Vinayak,
At 06:09 AM 8/12/2013, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion on the IETF mailing list regarding
improving remote participation and improving diversity on the mailing
lists and in the working groups. I think the two are related. I think
everyone broadly agrees that re
On Aug 13, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I agree in principle (MS document formats are not a suitable document
> exchange format for an open standards body) but in truth, it's been
> awhile since Open Office hasn't been able to read .doc files correctly.
I wonder, though, if this docum
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
>
>I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
>(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
>saying that you should not use the Office suite to write it, but you
>could convert it to PDF (better
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Proposed-SoW-2013-final.doc
>>
>>I know that I should not this, but... I am a bit surprised
>>(disappointed) in seeing a proprietary format used here. I am not
>>saying that you should not use the Office s
On Aug 13, 2013, at 13:14, Tony Finch wrote:
> Type tags don't really need to
> be part of the serialization format: they can be encoded in a simpler
> format by the application.
Yes, and we also can get rid of maps {"a": 1, "b": 2}.
Just represent them as arrays of two-element arrays [["a", 1
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call: (URI Scheme for
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'URI Scheme for S
On Aug 13, 2013, at 9:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
> There's no great way
> to send around a redlined document and I'd say that Word formats are
> currently the least bad.
rfcdiff does really nicely, actually.
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-to: iesg-secret...@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: (Traversal
Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers) to Proposed
X-C5I-RSN: 1/0/934/11413/12177
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following docu
On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:14 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>
>> The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format
>> whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code
>> size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need
>>
--On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 06:24 -0400 John Leslie
wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Douglas Otis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote
>>> participants who receive credit for their participation
>>> equal to that of being
Riccardo
All of the DOC files are in the process of being replaced with PDF files.
I apologize for the inconvenience and angst this caused.
Ray
On Aug 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> Is this the document with the proposed SOW?
>
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RPC-Propo
>I wonder, though, if this document might have contained change bars that
>nobody but people who use MS
>Word would see. Opening the document up in Preview on the Mac, it's just
>four or five pages of
>text, with no way to evaluate what changed.
It looks fine in OpenOffice. Really.
I agree w
Thank you for your review, David. The Gen-ART reviews are important feedback
for me to understand where I should look more closely.
In this case your review caused me to read the draft in detail, and I now have
similar question as you did. I have raised a Discuss in my IESG ballot so that
we c
At 15:14 12-08-2013, Graham Klyne wrote:
But, in a personal capacity, not as designated reviewer, I have to
ask *why* this needs to be a URI. As far as I can tell, it is
intended for use only in very constrained environments, where there
seems to be little value in having an identifier that ca
At 09:25 10-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
Fair point. RFC2026 does not in fact make the distinction I made.
Here is what RFC 2026 says about proposed standards:
A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has r
On 8/13/2013 12:40 PM, SM wrote:
There is a bug in the above. I prefer to avoid quoting RFC 2026
nowadays as nobody really knows what RFC 2026; or to say it differently,
the consensus is that there isn't any consensus about RFC 2026.
Either you are wrong or we have no stable, written criteri
Dear authors,
sorry I'm submitting these comments after the end of the LC period. I
hope they can still be of use.
- The document is well written and very clearly explained.
- I am still of the opinion that this document should better be
published as Experimental RFC. Unlike TCP and UDP. But
(leaving a full response to the authors, and responding to a couple of
points I found interesting)
On 8/13/13 3:11 PM, "Yaron Sheffer" wrote:
>- Arrays are prefixed by the number of elements but not by their length
>in bytes. And elements need not be all of the same size. So you cannot
>skip the
Ok. I assume this should be for FT? Or just something to get started?
Steve
-Original Message-
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org]
Received: Tuesday, 13 Aug 2013, 18:18
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org [ietf-annou...@ietf.org]; rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
[rfc-d...@rfc-edito
On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> sorry I'm submitting these comments after the end of the LC period. I hope
> they can still be of use.
No problem, and the are. Some answers below.
> - The "diagnostic notation" can be used very effectively for things like
> configuration fi
Hi -
>From: Yaron Sheffer
>Sent: Aug 13, 2013 2:11 PM
>To: IETF Discussion Mailing List
>Subject: re: Last Call: (Concise Binary Object
>Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
...
>- The "diagnostic notation" can be used very effectively for things like
>configuration files, e.g. if
27 matches
Mail list logo
