Boy, what a bunch of wimps! Paris in the summer is not life-threatening,
unless possibly you're an elderly shut-in in a fourth-floor walkup without
air conditioning during last summer's heat wave; if you want
life-threatening, I suggest a trip to any of the affected areas on the
Indian Ocean r
Same in salon A as well. I think the outage was at least the third floor,
but it seems to be OK now.
Andy
-
At 3/7/2005 03:16 PM +, Tim Chown wrote:
Much gnashing of teeth in Salon D this morning.
DHCP failing for v4, IPv6 connectivity coming and goping
Seems everyone in the room is
Yup, there's some chatter in the hallway room right now - mostly people
checking their connections.
Andy
-
At 3/7/2005 11:26 AM -0500, jamal wrote:
Can someone else double check jabber? - i am having issues connecting to
any of the morning sesssions.
cheers,
jamal
___
I'm with the folks that like this schedule. it's great being done for the
evening before dinner - it makes for a much more relaxed meal, and you
don't have to worry about going too far from the meeting. I also remember
that the Adelaide meeting, at least half of the people in the Monday night
Steve,
I did notice fewer people in the bar than usual. Given how much work
gets done at bar bofs, that's significant.
I suspect that's due to what they charge in the hotel bar more than
anything else! :-)
Andy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.o
Mike,
We also fixed the IOP and performance problems in the PSNs. :-)
Thanks for sending this!
Cheers,
Andy
-
At 9/11/2005 18:38 -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
The 20th anniversary of the first meeting of the IETF is coming up
fast - January 2006. I think a little history is in order
Previous IETFs, up to IETF 63, had both HTML and text versions of the
agenda online, and using the HTML version, one could just click on
links to get both the WG charter and the WG meeting agenda. This
meeting, you need three different browser windows open if you want
the agenda, WG charters,
e for this meeting as well.
Cheers,
Andy
At 10/30/2005 20:59 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi Andy,
on 2005-10-30 15:29 Andrew G. Malis said the following:
> Previous IETFs, up to IETF 63, had both HTML and text versions of the
> agenda online, and using the HTML version, one
Dan,
You must have been on 802.11b. 802.11a was solid from Tuesday
morning through to the end of the week. I was having problems on
Monday with dueling access points but that was fixed by Tuesday morning.
Cheers,
Andy
---
At 11/12/2005 06:45 +0200, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote:
I kn
an a card has signficantly shorter range
range at 5.8ghz than a b card does at 2412ghz, and more surfaces
(airwalls people etc) are opaque. This cuts down on the noise quite a bit.
--
Eric
--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> On Beha
It's up right now.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it just me or is there a problem with jabber.ietf.org? I can't join
> any of the rooms.
>
> Iljitscy
> ___
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https
Wrenching this thread back to match the subject line .
Having just gone through the nomcom process as a new addition to the
IAB, I just wanted to add my two cents
In the past I've volunteered for the nomcom lottery but was never
selected, so I can't speak with authority about any previou
Phillip does have a point regarding 802.1x authentication, which is
typically used to authenticate the user to the service, and not vice
versa. Conceivably a person could set up an "evil" access point that
advertises the same beacon as the official access points, and has
802.1x enabled to accept th
Thomas,
I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by
subject line rather than by sender.
Thanks,
Andy
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Total of 103 messages in the last 7 days.
>
> script run at: Fri Apr 18 00:53:01 EDT 2008
>
>M
t
to go back to check it out. Just a thought ...
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Harald Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> > Thomas,
> >
> > I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by
> > subject
Todd,
Not knowing much about SCADA, I just checked it out in Wikipedia. The
following caught my eye:
"Standard protocols are IEC 60870-5-101 or 104, IEC 61850 and DNP3.
These communication protocols are standardized and recognized by all
major SCADA vendors. Many of these protocols now contain ex
Ted,
I was at the workshop representing the IAB, and I fully agree. While
it was held in a good-sized auditorium, given the obvious interest in
the topic, if everyone who wanted to attend or get on the agenda
could, we would have needed a venue two or three times the size, more
administrative supp
Todd,
I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value
on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some
sort to set a price.
However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in
technology they are going to include in a submission (and this rea
8:54 PM, TS Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion"
> ; <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I just added my name to the database. What I would REALLY like is to
just have my badge scanned when I enter a meeting room instead of
signing a blue sheet.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Athar Shiraz Siddiqui
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dr. Henning has asked us to install a syst
At 4/23/2006 19:26 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-apr-2006, at 18:40, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Walking time from the hotel to the conference site is 6 minutes.
The advantage of the Delta as compared to "closer" hotels
is that the walk can be done without going outside
Is that important?
Well, obviously, those of us that did the survey should be rewarded
by having the consensus results acted upon ... if people don't like
the results in Montreal, they'll have more of an incentive to take
the survey at that time.
More seriously, Ray might get more of a result if he sent the requ
Phillip,Did you mean http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-abstracts.txt ? It's still there, as always. 1id-index.txt is also there.Cheers,
AndyOn 7/10/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The IETF Web site goes for terrible to worse. It is bad enough that the site is designed
In the past, the IETF network has had a local SMTP server. This wasn't the case this time. Am I the only person that missed it? I obviously have an alternative, but it's a nice service.
Thanks,
Andy
--
On 7/13/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thats because Dr
Eric,
All I can say is that you're not looking very hard - I just spent all of 5 mniutes searching for tickets and found a nonstop between Boston and San Diego for $418 on Alaska (this flight is also an American codeshare), and single-connection flights from Manchester NH starting at $315 on Nort
Dave,
Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolis and Detroit, US Airways in Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in Altanta and Salt Lake City, Amer
I was the person who wrote the IMP code and, on January 1, "pulled the switch" to disable port 0 (NCP) on the ARPANET IMP interfaces. I had also included the abiltity to override the switch on a port-by-port basis, and we had a procedure in place well prior to the cutover for approved exceptions t
Ole,
That's a good one! I would hate to see the length of that exception list :-) And who would have the authority to grant the exceptions
Cheers,
Andy
-
On 9/26/06, Ole Jacobsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, Andy. Can we put you in charge of the IP v4/v6 transition, sayJ
You're much better off following this link (but I think you have to use
Internet Explorer for it to work):
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=50.09292~14.437961&style=r&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&rtp=null~null
You can very easily see the Hilton.
Cheers,
Andy
On 12/18/06, Andy Bier
Brian,
As a recent "victim" of a Gen-ART review, I can only say that it improved
the quality of the RFC-to-be (thanks, Spencer!). And the reviews might
encourage other people to read the draft that might not otherwise had a
chance to be aware of it. So yeah, keep them coming!
Cheers,
Andy
On 2/
There is no SLA regarding the priority tags on bags. I've found that most
airports ignore them, so I'm always pleasantly surprised when the priority
bags come out first. For the most part, my experience has been that bags
tend to show up in LIFO order, so you're being rewarded for checking in
late
RFID would be a great way to replace the blue sheets as well - put an RFID
reader at the door of each meeting room. Embed the chip in the name tag so
you don't need to remember to bring anything else from your hotel room in
the morning.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Schliesser, Benson wro
foil...
Thanks!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
------
*From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:55 AM
*To:* David Morris
*Cc:* ietf@ietf.org
*Subject:* RFID (was: identifying yourself at the mic)
RFID would be a grea
We've been referencing ITU-T specifications for a very long time, even
though until this year you had to pay for them. The key is publicly
available, not publicly free.
Cheers,
Andy
On Oct 28, 2007 10:01 PM, Randy Presuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> > From: "lconroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stuart and Ray,
I called the hotel directly to make my reservations. Just mentioned
the IETF and got the group rate. Note that $130 is for a single room -
I was quoted $160 for two people (Ray, is that correct?). Also, I was
told that cancellation is 48 hours with with no penalties.
Cheers,
Andy
Ray,
Thanks - and also thanks to everyone that pointed out that I used $
when I meant € ... just typing too fast for my own good.
Cheers,
Andy
On Feb 1, 2008 3:28 PM, Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> Stuart and Ray,
>
> I c
Two lost SecureID tokens have been found at the Crown Plaza Hotel. One was
found on the second floor today (Thursday), and the other was found
Wednesday evening in the lounge. They have been given to lost and found in
the hotel.
Andy Malis and Bert Wijnen
Two lost SecureID tokens have been found at the Crown Plaza Hotel. One was
found on the second floor today (Thursday), and the other was found
Wednesday evening in the lounge. They have been given to lost and found in
the hotel.
Andy Malis and Bert Wijnen
I both faxed and emailed the form and received a fax confirmation several
days later. I don't know which one did the trick. I suspect the fax,
since I was faxed a reply.
Cheers,
Andy
---
At 1/5/2004 02:52 PM -0500, David R. Oran wrote:
I sent in my reservation request the day after re
ferent spectrum)
>
>
> -Doug
________
Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:978 952-7414 fax:978 392-2074
Lucent Technologies 1 Robbins RoadWestford, MA 01886
;Jianbo Huang
>-
>This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which
>is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed.
>Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
________
Andrew G. M
L PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed.
>Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:978 952-7414 fax:978 392-2074
Lucent Technologies 1 Robbins RoadWestford, MA 01886
For another data point ...
I had the identical problem with my bronze card (flash briefly). I got one
of the silver cards and plugged it in, and it just worked with my existing
Bronze 4.0 driver and application. I didn't need to update either the
silver card firmware or the driver SW. This
David,
>There are plenty of books describing how IP packets are encapsulated in
>Ethernet frames or ATM cells, or PPP frames. But I have not seen a book
>describe how IP packets be carried in DS1, Fractional DS1, DS3, Fractional
>DS3 signals. These signals are point to point, byte streams. I thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed.
>Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
____________
Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:978 952-7414 fax:978 392-2074
Lucent Technologies 1 Robbins RoadWestford, MA 01886
Privite
>networks and Virtual LANs? Respectfully, Betsy B.
____________
Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:978 952-7414 fax:978 392-2074
Lucent Technologies 1 Robbins RoadWestford, MA 01886
From http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt:
Spring 2002 - 53rd IETF
March 17-22, 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Host: TBD
Cheers,
Andy
Ting,
Assuming you use MS Word, here are a few steps to perfectly printed
I-Ds:
1. Save the I-D from your browser to your hard drive as a .txt file (not
HTML).
2. Start MS Word and open the draft in Word.
3. Use Print Preview to see how it will print (scroll down a few pages to
check it out). Usu
Paul,
Join the ietf_censored list, which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
you'll get the flames pre-filtered out. As the list info says, not all
messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele
D'Albenzio. It's a wonderful public service.
To subscribe, click on:
Charles,
At least for AT&T Broadband, you can call them on the phone and give them a
new MAC address (since you are allowed to buy new computers!). In my case,
once the cable modem was up and working with one computer, I just called
them and gave them the MAC address for my router/firewall/NAT.
Melinda,
I sent an email to the anonymous yahoo ID identified as the mplsissues list
owner to please identify him or herself, and to cease spamming IETF and
other lists.
I also completely agree with Randy's point. Posting to IETF lists should
be restricted to list participants. That's how I
Joe,
>>I also completely agree with Randy's point. Posting to IETF lists should
>>be restricted to list participants.
>
>That's often harder to do than it appears, esp. for those who have
>multiple mail addresses from which they might reply, or for those on local
>'exploder' lists that would
There's obviously a subset of the "newcomers" who only attend because a
meeting is local or otherwise convenient to attend, or come with narrowly
focused interests, and never planned to become a regular.
Since attendance is largely flat over last few years, obviously newcomers
that become regulars
SM,
I was following this working group which will likely be shut down because
> there is not enough participation. There are quite a few working group
> which fit that profile. I prefer not to view things as "actually not in a
> bad place" as it encourages complacency.
>
Back in the 90s, I chai
As LogMein says, even with the TMobile and Rogers use, it's extremely
unlikely that their customers will need to communicate with any hosts in
25/8. That said, I absolutely agree that an IPv4 range devoted to VPNs
would be great. I run a personal VPN to my home LAN, and I specifically use
different
Stephen,
Your goal is laudatory, but the devil will be in the details. For example,
you wrote:
Note also that this experiment just needs an implementation that
makes it possible for the WG chairs and responsible AD to verify (to
the extent they chose) that the implementation matches the
Whoops, I meant that the draft and implementation match, sorry about that.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> Your goal is laudatory, but the devil will be in the details. For example,
> you wrote:
>
>Note also that th
Ray,
I haven't seen much (any?) discussion of this announcement, perhaps a first
for this group. Anyway, I think it's an excellent idea, it gives people a
chance to plan their travel further out especially if they're thinking of
bringing companions, families, etc. Please continue this!
Thanks,
An
Tom,
There's a "compatibility view" button in recent versions of IE that I've
found helps with some websites. See
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/features/compatibility-view.
You can also find it in the Tools menu.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:13 AM
I think this is an excellent idea. The Adelaide meeting worked out fine,
and this would be a lot closer for a great many participants than that
meeting was.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, The IAOC wrote:
> As you may know the IAOC has been investigating the feasibility of havi
I'm with Joe on this. I also travel extensively, including in
non-tourist areas, and have never had my US Visa or Mastercard
declined because it didn't have a chip.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-03-31, at 20:56, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> In theo
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I would expect this (per user login) to fade away after Beijing - unless and
> until the IAOC and IETF agrees that its necessary for the longer term. And I
> don't believe that discussion has been had.
I would like to second this.
IMHO,
Is there a consensus that a tourist visa is sufficient to attend the
IETF from the US?
Thanks,
Andy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in
Waikiki. Both the hotel and the attached convention center are large
enough to host several IETFs simultaneously.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> Hadriel Kaplan [mailto://hkap...@acmepacket.com]
+1 to everything Brian says. There are very many good reasons to have
Informational RFCs, whether they're an independent submission, an RFC
that represents IETF consensus but doesn't define protocol elements,
or from one of the other streams, such as the IAB or IRTF. And
speaking as someone who wo
Like others that have chimed in, I'm just concerned that it will be
difficult to attend multiple BOFs of interest if they're all scheduled
against each other.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the
I know that XML is the wave of the future, but I just want to give
Stefan a plug as a happy user that NroffEdit makes the mechanical and
formatting part of writing drafts almost effortless.
Cheers,
Andy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.iet
+1 for me as well for either proposed new schedule.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> +1. I could also happily live with the alternate, more
> compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
> schedule used in Quebec and earlier.
>
> john
>
>
> --On Tuesday, A
I also like Minneapolis, for what it's worth.
Cheers,
Andy
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> On 26/08/2011 16:48, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>> [MB] I've not seen a single person advocate a 0:3:0 schedule and it's only
>> less
>> cheaper for all participants (not just US) beca
Speaking as an individual, the solution in this draft has been has been
operationally deployed in a number of service provider networks, and it
should be documented in an informational RFC.
Speaking as PWE3 co-chair, I would be happier if this draft required that
routers that implement this soluti
Very nice, thanks!!
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 07:17, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>> But I am now quite happy with the IETF draft archive and I have a couple
>> of customized Firefox search entries that minimize the amount of typing
>> needed.
>
> https://addo
Ole,
I think Milo can speak for himself!
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
>
> This is going to upset Milo Medin!
>
> Ole
>
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-46
Milo,
Actually, I obsoleted 877 with 1356, so 877 should go on the historic
list as well!
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Milo Medin wrote:
> Egads! You guys tried to sneak this by me while I was helping my wife
> deliver our 4th baby? Have you no shame??
> I would like to point
Randy,
I was the source of the request that started all this, so you can
blame me! Of course, if you have replied a bit earlier, we could have
discussed this over lunch yesterday! :-)
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Randy,
>
> Reclassifying old documents to
ternet Standards (unlike TCP
> and IP) and we shouldn't be twiddling with their status. They don't belong
> to us. Most of the pre-1000 RFCs are neither standards nor even technical
> in nature. A number of them are administrivia of the early Internet and
> ARPANET. The
Scott,
Well, it's moot now because I've withdrawn the request.
However, according to the IESG statement dated 10/20/11 titled
"Revised IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic", RFC
justifications are no longer required for this action. If you have an
argument against this new policy, you s
A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> John, I believe you read the consensus right. "authors obtain all of
> the rights they are willing to".
>
> Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 0
It took me three flights and about 35 or so hours of travel to get to
the Adelaide meeting, but that didn't keep me away. Grow up, people -
it's one trip out of your life! Go with the flow and enjoy it
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
> On 25 mei 200
For better or for worse, several years ago, in reaction to the
difficulty people were having attending IETF meetings due to the late
announcement of meeting dates and/or clashes with other groups, the
decision was made to build a comprehensive do-not-clash list and
announce meeting dates as far in
+1 to Dave's suggestion below regarding the name of the draft, as well
as Joel's and John's responses to Jari's original question (i.e.,
retain existing practice regarding IESG notes).
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>
>> The doc
Lou,
Does that online rate you saw include in-room Internet, service
charges, and taxes? Those are included in the IETF rate.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why is the IETF rate ~2000Y higher than their standard
> internet room rate (try to bo
There are multiple Chinese consulates in the US, and each one seems to
have its own rules regarding visas. So it really pays to work with an
experienced visa service.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM, HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS
wrote:
> John,
> I'm commenting specifically on you
Sabahattin,
Note that IPv6 NAT makes multihoming to different ISPs much easier as well.
One thing that IPv6 NAT has in advantage to IPv4 NAT is that it can be
stateless, isomorphic, and port transparent by just translating the
upper part of the address, such as in the case where an enterprise is
The IETF meetings have evolved over time. There are now more
activities on Sunday than there used to be. There used to be an
opening plenary on Monday. We used to have WG sessions in the evening
after dinner. There used to be one long plenary on Wednesday evening,
starting at 7:30 PM. When we split
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well
> as allowed
Unfortunately, many corporate email systems, including at a former
employer of mine, automatically add these to every outgoing email, and
individual employees have no control over it nor any way to change the
corporate policy. Which is one of the reasons why I use non-work email
for my IETF work.
Andrew,
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
>
>
> With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion list regarding
There is a very high cost to service providers every time a new codec
is introduced operationally, at the very least in the form of
full-mesh transcoding. Thus, new codecs should not be developed
lightly.
As I think we can all agree, the world already has enough encumbered
codecs, and there's no p
Glen,
Go back and enjoy your Christmas!!!
Thanks,
Andy
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Glen wrote:
> All -
>
> The IETF is aware that a number of you have received additional and/or
> unexpected address confirmation request messages from the IETF over the
> past couple of days. We're sorry fo
As I've said before, there is a high cost to service providers every time
a new codec is introduced operationally, at the very least in the form of
full-mesh transcoding. Thus, new codecs should not be developed
lightly.
The world already has enough encumbered codecs, and there's no point in
addin
Russ,
Yes, that's better, thanks.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Andy:
>
> Does the following text strike a better balance?
>
> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>
I've lost count of the number of times I've been to China (somewhere
in the teens), and I'm sure that there are people on this list who've
visited China many more times than that. I've entered and left China
by air, by car (via Hong Kong), and by train (also via Hong Kong).
I've never once had a pr
If you are a US resident, also note that China has multiple
consulates, and the consulate that you will use for your visa depends
on where you live. See this map for details:
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/t84229.htm
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> I'll
Abhishek,
The overriding reason, as far as I'm concerned, is that many or most
service providers have a policy of avoiding equipment purchases that
lock them into a single vendor if at all possible. Second sources are
necessary for a number of reasons, and not only for competition - what
happens i
Also taking my chair hat off ... as Malcolm stated that G.8113.1
applies to PWs, and the requested allocation is in a registry that
originated in the PWE3 working group, I agree that a PWE3 WG last call
is warranted. This could certainly take place in parallel with the
MPLS WG last call.
Cheers,
A
I would like to support Nurit's comments below. In particular, in the
past the ITU-T has expanded upon or changed the usage of IETF
codepoint allocations, in some cases incompatibly with its original
usage or definition. In the future, all codepoint allocations to the
ITU-T should be tied to one sp
Mustapha,
You might want to wait for any other LC comments before updating.
Thanks,
Andy
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) <
mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and
> publish a new revi
Stewart,
To answer your second question, SG15 C1123 (January 2011) states that
0x7FFA is the experimental ACh Type actually in use by CT.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Stewa
Whoops, I slightly misspoke. Amend my previous email to just say "To
answer your second question, SG15 C1123 (January 2011) states that
0x7FFA is the experimental ACh Type actually in use."
Cheers,
Andy
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> To
As long as you don't go any later than the week of April 10 - the week
of April 17 runs into the start of Passover.
Thanks,
Andy
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wro
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
