Re: charging remote participants

Hi Bernard, I'm afraid that, as it usually happens with 'software', we are overly underestimating the huge development effort (in terms of human resources and brain cycles) that is needed before arriving at a 'few hundred $ per year' product. When it comes to the IETF, let me also add that, in

Re: Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

Hello, It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and anyone else, to provide your opinion about the following: RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records: 1. The data in TXT is unstructured a

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp

Re: Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

On 28 aug 2013, at 14:24, S Moonesamy wrote: > It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on > draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and anyone else, > to provide your opinion about the following: > > RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT re

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12

Roni, Thanks for an insightful review, you have captured much of what we been struggling with when it comes to the IANA allocations. On 2013-08-28 15:06, Roni Even wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Re: Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

On 8/28/2013 5:24 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and anyone else, to provide your opinion about the following: RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records: RFC 55

Re: Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 07:21:13 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/28/2013 5:24 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > > It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on > > draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and anyone > > else, to provide your opinion about the following:

Re: Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

In message <6.2.5.6.2.20130828044224.06ee3...@resistor.net>, S Moonesamy writes : > Hello, > > It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on > draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis. I would like to ask each of you, and > anyone else, to provide your opinion about the following: > > RFC 5

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12

Hi Loa, See inline Roni > -Original Message- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu] > Sent: 28 August, 2013 5:20 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org; gen- > a...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf