Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has already been denied posting rights on at
least one IETF WG mailing list because of this behaviour.
Is it time to dig out RFC 3683/BCP 83?
BTW - has anyone, anywhere ever seen a response from him/them when
they have been asked to stop spammin
IETF Secretariat wrote:
Power will be provided in the breakout meeting rooms, but will NOT be provided
in the Plenary room on Wednesday and Thursday evening.
Does this mean they will be running power to the rooms sometime today?
Some appear to have none at all; others have on the order of
Dave Crocker wrote:
(This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
I don't think it is a useful exercise to go through all the closed
working groups to determine which would have been in RAI had the area
existed when they were still active.
/a
__
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:29:22 -0400
From: Adam Roach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Makes me still wonder why "an entity" - I assume that
could be something I carry with me - should be so indiscreet as
telling that it's now in the "cafe" of a "jail" in an "airport"
or other obscure locations. That's nobody's business but mine.
Nobody's business but yo
Ken Raeburn wrote:
Are there [802.11a] cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays?
This device has a lot of geek appeal; in addition to A/G/B support, it
acts as a stand-alone handheld 802.11 network detection device:
http://www.zyxel.com/product/model.php?indexcate=1131440677
The spec sheet doe
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
We understand that the new registration system is taking time to get
working, and I doubt that's a big problem for many people. But as of
this writing, there is no information on the IETF web site about the
meeting venue or hotels. Any idea
I'm not sure how helpful this is, but the email sent by the Hilton has
the following boilerplate attached:
CZECHOUSE GRILL & ROTISSERIE
The only fine-dining non-smoking restaurant in Prague!
Open for lunch on weekdays from noon till 3 PM
Open for dinner daily from 6 PM till 11 PM
For reservati
On 11/29/07 2:00 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
...[T]he renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after the venue decision
I believe) is of... the bar.
Well, there goes any hope of getting anything useful done in Philly. :)
/a
___
Ietf mailing lis
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
> Listening in on this conversation, it seems to me that
> Marshall is talking about "conferencing" in a sense which
> includes a lot of different mechanisms, the premier one
> being instant messaging, while Jon (and the XCON charter)
> speaks about "conferencing" i
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
>--On 20. august 2003 10:06 -0500 Adam Roach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I believe any modifications to the charter that
> > de-emphasized text as a media type would be a
> > disservice to a significant number of potential
>
Richard Shockey writes:
> I think the XCON folks were trying to be inclusive
> in their charter development but frankly I don't think
> its necessary. The IETF now has three SIP related WG's
> operating well and producing good work and the scope
> of the XCON proposal IMHO should be directed at SI
Marshall Rose writes:
> the xmpp folks have a workable, deployed solution in the
> conferencing space. if they decide to take this work to the ietf,
> then that should also be accorded the same courtesy in being judged
> on its merits in the context of xmpp.
I can understand that you have concern
Lisa Dusseault writes:
> I'm also concerned that conferencing semantics could lead to
> basic interoperability problems that would be difficult to
> surmount.
Once again, I implore those with concerns to read the
XCON input documents. As can be easily verified, the
model being proposed in no wa
Marshall Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > However, the
> > proposed solutions (all of which I expect to instantly
> > be accepted as working group items in the case that the
> > working group is chartered) demonstrate no such binding.
> > ...
>
> accordingly, i think your statement
Because this is probably a community of interest for the
topic of DNS, I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning
that Verisign has apparently unilaterally put in place
wildcard DNS records for *.com and *.net. All unregistered
domains in .com and .net now resolve to 64.94.110.11, which
runs a Ver
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Would it be possible to publish a list of MAC addresses that were
> operating in ad-hoc or AP mode? If all of the happened to come from a
> signle manufacturer, that might be a very interesting data point.
A lot -- possibly even a majority -- of the cards I saw operating i
I sent in an e-mail the day of, and haven't heard back, either.
This sounds like a systemic problem.
/a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 14:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Has anybody hea
ng response.
/a
-Original Message-
From: KeeMoon Roh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 18:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Letter of Invitation]
Dear. Adam Roach
This mail is from 59th Local IETF Secretariats in Korea.
Currently we are issuing invitat
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Has anybody tried this kind of trick (putting the SIM in
> another phone)
> with a T-mobile sim? I know that T-mobile binds the phone to the sim
> but don't know if they bind the sim to the phone.
>
> --aaron
>
As
These cannot be mapped. There are no equivalents in the SIP protocol.
/a
> -Original Message-
> From: a c [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 20:44
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Sipping] additional optional parameters for
> translatio
On 7/6/10 7:20 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
From my perspective what this is really about is the ability for me to
have interoperable ad-hoc video calls between businesses which can be
established via SIP with a "good enough" level of authentication and
security.
You're looking in the wrong pl
On 7/6/10 10:00 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
Yeah. Sigh.
I guess the issue then becomes whether this is enough of a step in
right direction that it can be built on - and whether it's worth the
effort.
Cullen/Jonathan - can you speak to any of the operational issues
w.r.t. 'failure surprise' i
On 8/24/10 6:58 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
After you register for the meeting, you have the option to request a
letter of invitation.
What is the timeframe for sending these letters of invitation? I
requested one on on August 16th, and haven't heard from Tsinghua
University yet. Are these bein
On 11/24/10 2:08 PM, IAB Chair wrote:
The IAB intends to publish "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs-02
This document discusses issues related to the extensibility of Internet
protocols, with a focus on the architectural design co
On 11/24/10 3:49 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
While section 2.3 of draft-iab-extension-recs-02 can be read as very vaguely pointing
away from this kind of extension ("[S]pecifications that look very similar to the
original but don't interop
On 12/30/10 6:15 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
Registration will open the beginning of next week with the usual hotel details,
etc.
Ray
Wow. Less than a week, and the special rate for the block is already
unavailable. I've reserved a room at 5600 CZK per night (about $300US),
but I don't think
On 2/7/11 12:44 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I was somewhat surprised to see this back in LC. I am still not aware of any
use case where this actually helps. I searched the IETF and WG lists for email
with the subject draft-ietf-sipcore-199 and I do not see a single email that
suggests there is
On 2/28/11 11:27 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Feb 7, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
At every step of this process, the IETF, RAI, and SIP community has
opportunity for involvement. The volume of discussion demonstrates a
non-trivial interest in this mechanism.
Hmm ... I 100% agree
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against this plan. By
Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal schedule. Pushing lunch back by
2 hours would pretty well on guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and
less coherent than normal by the end of Session II.
/a
On 8/1/11 10:10 AM, Russ
On 8/29/11 9:44 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
Yes, and...
I would offer that for most cases, If Y then MUST X or If Z then MUST NOT X
*are* what people usually mean when they say SHOULD. In the spirit of Say What
You Mean, a bare SHOULD at the very least raise an ID-nit, suggesting to the
author to
On 8/30/11 2:23 AM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
On 2011-08-30 at 07:36:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
for long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended
to obsolete RFC 2119.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE OF AGREEING THAT SHOUTING IS BAD? (i.e., Burger's first anti-law.)
As opposed to mand
n SHOULD or MAY?
On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 8/29/11 9:44 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
Yes, and...
I would offer that for most cases, If Y then MUST X or If Z then MUST NOT X
*are* what people usually mean when they say SHOULD. In the spirit of Say What
You Mean, a bare SHOU
Bernard Aboba wrote:
Do all [SIP] option tags really need to be standards track?
I would argue that they do. Option tags define normative extensions to
the core SIP protocol. The prospect of defining a SIP protocol extension
in, say, an informational or historical document seems rather
i
I have a serious concern about the impact of this decision and the
perception of RFCs by the community that uses the output of the IETF.
The IETF process has a number of very strong safeguards in place to
ensure that the protocols we publish have certain levels of quality and
safety built in,
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't supposed
to be subject to community review.
Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we would
prominently mark the documents to indicate that they have not been
subjected to community review? I
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Wed try very hard to make it clear to folks that there is a difference
between standards track documents and non-standards track documents.
Independent Stream documents are not standards track documents.
And I agree that there is an issue of the community not distinguish
Jari Arkko wrote:
However, in this case: if you have a general comment on 3932bis,
please post to the Last Call thread. If you want to answer my specific
question about the optional/mandatory nature of the IESG note, please
respond to this thread.
So, to be clear, the question you have raised
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet
connection not hampered by a Great
On 9/18/09 14:33, Sep 18, John G. Scudder wrote:
[T]here would also seem to be a risk of loss of productivity due to
self-censorship by people who do choose to attend.
+1
/a
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ie
On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying:
(a) No, they don't prohibit
On 9/22/09 22:42, Sep 22, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I see absolutely NOTHING in the transcript of the IETF 75 session on
net neutrality that I would consider disrespectful or demfamatory of
any government.
The problem is that you're looking for a needle in the portion of a
haystack that happens to h
On 9/24/09 18:31, Sep 24, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
To repeat: The IAOC does not think we are in any real danger of having our
meeting disrupted or terminated due to actions which would be deemed in
violation of the clause in question. We expect a meeting in China to be just
like any other IETF meet
On 9/8/11 12:27 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG has decided to use the following experimental schedule for the Friday
of IETF 82 and 83
Can we wait for community feedback (via Ray's post-meeting surveys) on
how well this works for IETF 82 before we commit to it for IETF 83?
/a
9:00 AM
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
1. August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using
SIP for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a single
Huawei employee.
2. August 30, 2007: That same Huawei employee and two additional
authors publish
On 1/25/12 15:50, Jan 25, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Please also see US patent 20090204681 visible at
http://ip.com/patapp/US20090204681
Well, at least U.S. patent application. And, for that matter,
International Application PCT/CN2008/072066:
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO200902
Moving to ietf@ietf.org, since I think this is not in any way specific
to Berlin.
On 8/2/13 12:24, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
In rtcweb we have remote participants that prefer anonymity for a number of
reasons.
I'm going to make a broad assumption that the "number of reasons" all
relate to p
On 9/12/13 05:47, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Therefore, this draft registers the Session-ID header field with the
IANA. The designated expert is reviewing this registration, per the
rules in RFC 5727.
Yes, I am, and the only reason I didn't rubberstamp this for
registration as soon as it hit my
48 matches
Mail list logo
