Re: Mailing list identification, e.g., [IETF], in subject lines

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 15.07.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Short answer: > > No. > > Long answer: > > This item has been discussed to death once every 3 months on this very > list. We have never found a consensus to add these tags. List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Un

Re: Last Call: 'The APPLICATION/MBOX Media-Type' to Proposed Standard

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric A. Hall) wrote on 13.08.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:45:24 -0400: > > > this is an application for a media-type. it's not trying to define the > > mbox format, it's just trying to define a label for the mbox form

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Touch) wrote on 11.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > > Dear Harald-the-General-AD, > > > > Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new drafts? > > That may have a chilling effect on new drafts. I.e., this isn't as > simple as "l

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Touch) wrote on 12.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Kai Henningsen wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Touch) wrote on 11.09.04 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>Spencer Dawkins wrote: > >> > >> &g

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Braden) wrote on 13.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I have yet to see a coherent argument for keeping the ID series if it's > > > archived publicly. Why do we need to see the entire process - in public > > > - of editing and revision? And if we do, why do we need two se

Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ted Hardie) wrote on 21.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > creating the appropriate corporate realities. A major disagreement > that we seem to have is whether any additional work that may be required to > create the appropriate corporate realities is worth the options it > buys

Scenario C (was: Scenario O)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John C Klensin) wrote on 21.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > (time to change the subject line enough to do some > differentiation) ... but presumably this was the wrong change? MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https:

Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 25.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's not at all clear to me that this was the wrong engineering choice on > their part. If they didn't GC dead connections after some sort of timeout > (and would it make any significant different whether it was 5 minute

Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gene Gaines) wrote on 22.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It appears to me that IETF qualifies for this status easily as But we're not interested in this status for the IETF. We don't want to incorporate the IETF. What is under discussion is incorporating a separate organizat

Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 29.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sigh, Dave. > > > It is very unlikely that there is any language on this planet > > that would equate ""No, I do not wish to state an opinion" with > > "I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a ca

Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Carpenter) wrote on 30.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > A poll that asks for choice between X, Y and Neither seems like > the only rational way forward in that situation. Only Harald disagrees with that, because that is certainly not the question his poll asked - ther

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 11.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Why is that bad? > > There were, actually, two bad parts: > > 1. Two major open-source development groups felt it was both necessary > and

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 15.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > This is one of the many reasons why I think the free software > > community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before* > > coming to the IETF. > > Your two people to g

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Carpenter) wrote on 21.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Patent holders who choose to stay outside the standards setting > process are not in the least impressed by the IPR policy of the > standards body, whether it is the W3C, the IETF, or anywhere else. > Those are the

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 20.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with > regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This > does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination, > jus

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 23.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent > > > it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control > > > of the results through th

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Malamud) wrote on 20.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Eric - > > > I said this: if IETF wants to know what form of patent license will be > > acceptable to the open-source community, the people to ask are Richard > > Stallman (representing FSF) and myself (representing OSI)

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernon Schryver) wrote on 19.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Someone wrote me privately: > > ] For an open source guy he > ] has some pretty funny legal language: > ] > ] http://www.catb.org/~esr/copying.html > > That page includes this r

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 16.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > From: grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's > >> really out there, not the network some of us wish were there. > > > I know B-I

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the > >> network that's really out there, not the network some > >> of us wish were there. > > > grenville armitage wrote: > > I imagine any number

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 16.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if > life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your > face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Vixie) wrote on 18.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years, the majority > of services that anybody will want to access will be v4+v6 reachable, and > it will be realistic to consider provisioning first nat/v6 and then nona

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 20.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) > > >>> I know B-ISDN types said the same > > >> Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN. > > >> Anoth

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thus spake "Kai Henningsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > a.us>: > >> I think you mi

Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote on 23.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This really isn't a problem of the IETF. The problems is at the ISP's > who should charge for bandwidth usage and not for IP's. Actually, they do - with some qualifications - at least over here, in Germany. That is,

Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Margaret Wasserman) wrote on 23.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The average Internet user (home user or enterprise administrator) > does not care about the end-to-end principle or the architectural > purity of the Internet. Maybe not the average usr, but a pretty large subset

Re: Why people by NATs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Johansson) wrote on 27.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 10:11 +0100, Leif Johansson wrote: > > > >>>For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost of > >>>IP renumbering would be twenty times larger. Giv

Re: Why people by NATs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 22.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually > > configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You > > run DHCP within the home a

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin) wrote on 21.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > packet-switch networks. The internet (small "i") is not even defined in the > French law where the word is broadly used and understood as the generic > support of the "on-line public communications" and the digit

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 21.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thus spake "Kai Henningsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > ISTR that the local c

Re: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the IAOC Chair

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 28.01.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > --On fredag, januar 28, 2005 08:19:03 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Harald suggests > >The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from > >that positi

Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 09.02.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > !7. As bestween, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, Huh?! I can't parse that. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf

Re: text suggested by ADs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hallam-Baker, Phillip) wrote on 28.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > In every other forum I simply make up the SRV prefixes myself and stick > them in the draft. The chance of accidental collision is insignificant. > There are far more Windows applications than Internet communic

Re: Voting (again)

moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 27.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what > the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation > the vast majority of AD "edicts" (as opposed to directed feedback) > are the

Re: Enough was enough

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin) wrote on 30.08.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear Brian and all, > This mail of Harald Alvestrand positively concludes a long, difficult > and boring effort of mine started at the WG-IDNA. I apologise to all > for the inconveniences it created all over thes

Re: What is the latest trend of network research ???????

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Crowcroft) wrote on 01.03.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > basically, the mobile phone business is making moves to do what > MSN failed and capture "the whole internet" by making itself the one and > only portal - in europe at least, they stand a chance of succeeding for 3 >

Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Atkielski) wrote on 24.04.00 in <00db01bfae2b$eec52ef0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > That is mostly because the telco(s) tried to impose a fixed address length > on a scheme that really should have remained variable. Telephone numbers > overseas are truly variable. When you

Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Moore) wrote on 19.12.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > agreed, *provided* there is a fast and reliable service for mapping > between one kind of identity and another. arguments of the form > "separate identities are better" tend to gloss over the difficulty > of providing

Re: internet voting -- ICANN, SmartInitiatives, etc.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gerck) wrote on 12.01.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [long, but worth every megabyte] > > >From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Throwing encryption at voting is not enough to solve algorithmic > >problems. Digital signatures violate ballot secrecy and provide no

Re: Deja Vu

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Day) wrote on 20.03.01 in : > >sorry, but this is a US centric comment. IETF is international, so > >centrally located is an interesting question: center of the earth > >(probably enough hot...;-))). > > I'm not so sure. From what

Re: Deja Vu

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2. Have you tried getting a direct flight to Minneapolis from outside the > USA ? or San Diego ? It's not easy. My trusty timetable lookup offers "Napoli" when I ask for "Minneapolis". Though it might not cover flights, I've ne