On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dan Schlitt wrote:
> As the manager of a modestly large network I found the TXT record as a
> useful tool in management of the network. Such a use was even suggested by
> other system managers. That was a time when the Internet was a friendlier
> place. Today I m
>The engineering solution to this deployment problem is to generalize the
>problem and use a new record for that.
Either that or figure out how to make it easy enough to deploy new
RRTYPEs that people are willing to do so.
The type number is 16 bits, after all. We're not in any danger of running
John,
> Either that or figure out how to make it easy enough to deploy new
> RRTYPEs that people are willing to do so.
>
> The type number is 16 bits, after all. We're not in any danger of running
> out.
We have been told on numerous occasions that one of the primary reasons for
continued use
Olaf, Scott,
Apologies for a late reply on this (I was on vacation after the IETF). But
thank you for writing this draft. My general comment is that the draft makes
what in my mind is an accurate correction to our documents, aligning the
documents to the current reality. I'd be happy to take th
On 31/07/2013 15:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there
is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in
throug
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> John,
>
> > Either that or figure out how to make it easy enough to deploy new
> > RRTYPEs that people are willing to do so.
> >
> > The type number is 16 bits, after all. We're not in any danger of
> running out.
>
> We have been told on num
On Sep 2, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Olaf, Scott,
>
> Apologies for a late reply on this (I was on vacation after the IETF). But
> thank you for writing this draft. My general comment is that the draft makes
> what in my mind is an accurate correction to our documents, aligning th
Folks
the value of network based time sync efforts has been long understood in
this community but ...
I want to propose now that it (time and network sync) be elevated within
the IETF even farther so that time itself becomes the vertical allowing
the IETF to bundle all of the legacy and new p
Hi Jari,
On 03/09/2013 02:23, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> At the time of this writing, the IETF operates as if the
> Proposed Standard was the last chance for the to ensure the
> quality of the technology and the clarity of the standards
> document.
There's a point that I think should be made here
--On Monday, 02 September, 2013 14:09 -0400 Scott O Bradner
wrote:
>> There is at least one ongoing effort right now that has the
>> potential to reclassify a large set of Proposed Standard RFCs
>> that form the basis of widely used technology. These types of
>> efforts can have a relatively bi
> There's a point that I think should be made here, something like:
>
> In practice, interoperable implementations are commonly based on
> Proposed Standard documents, so whatever design defects those
> documents have tend to become part of the interoperable network,
> perhaps in the form of work
11 matches
Mail list logo
