Hi Folks!!
I would like to hear your opinions about how WAP people often say that WAP is
"mobile Internet". In my opinion, WAP is NOT mobile Internet at all. The
Internet is built on the e2e principle and based on the Internet Protocols,
which WAP is not. I can not tell people that they should no
The Web is NOT the Internet. The Web is one Internet application.
/L-E
>The Internet allows all protocols to in-operate with her. This is the
>uniqueness
>of the web. Therefore WAP falls within this area!
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:[EMAIL
> i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing
> the food, but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional
> $340K/year, and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel
> restaurant and snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level.
As most people I know
Word works fine for printing RFC's (txt version). However, you may need to decrease
the Top and Bottom margins a little to fit it on one page. To make all pages
identical, you should also add one line at the beginning of the document (page brakes
are interpreted as page brake + new line which a
Stephen,
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: February 21, 2002 21:43
> What I am asking is that if, on March 1, the agenda says my meetings
> are Monday and Tuesday, and I buy a cheap ticket to go home Wednesday,
> the agenda doesn't change
Juha,
This IS the recommendation according to the IESG statement for
spam-control, which could be considered "our policy":
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt
I handle this by always adding (without delivery) "secondary
addresses" for subscribers, the first time I have to
---
Lars-Erik Jonsson
Ericsson Research, Corporate Unit
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My opinions are my personal opinions and should not be considered
as the opinions of my employer, if not explicitly stated. At the
end of this message, my employer might have automatically inserted
a
I can not say much more than that I fully agree with Scott and
others who question the actual gain from going with scenario C.
To me, O seems to be what we need today, and I can not see what
additional benefits C would give, rather the opposite, as Scott
has pointed out below.
/Lars-Erik
> -
Well stated!!
/L-E
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: den 7 november 2004 22:08
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule
> change at
> the last moment
>
>
> I hav
Unfortunately, it seems like it is really hard for American sponsors to get
reasonable estimates on T-shirt size distribution. This is not the first time
sizes smaller than L have only been available for a few minutes, so those of us
who did not go there at exactly the right minute will have to
> > 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 user, but a pretty large subset *does*
> care - because t makes it extremely hard to do what they want
> ... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are
> (or that working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt
> a draft as a working group draft.
I actually believe it is useful to rename drafts when they are
adopted as WG documents. An individual draft is indeed the authors
Yes, the mp3 streaming seems to be a very useful tool to open up for
off-site participation. Compared to having a jabber chat room, it is
much easier to follow what happens, as even a very good scribe can
not possible capture everything that happens. Also, it is not easy
to find someone who is will
Elwyn,
As one of those who still use M$Word when writing drafts, I can also
confirm the generic text driver problems. Actually, I have had to
patch the draft parser for each new Windows version. However, after
doing that, I am still fine with using Word for drafts, as I like
WYSIWYG, and have no p
> > But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
>
> Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and
> timeliness -- and especially since early reviews seem to
> have succeeded at gaining IETF rough consensus as a Good
> Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure
> Other organizations have proponents explain what they are proposing.
> IMO this leads to a better quality of discussion.
Those other organizations often do *all* their work and take all
decisions in their face2face meetings, while our main venue is our
WG mail list, and face2face meetings are on
Bill,
I think this can often be the reason why WG's get frustrated
an unhappy with IESG feedback. I agree with you that #1 can be
desirable, but how often are there so many discuss comments
that handling them individually would be a mess? The problem we
get from channelling all discuss comments th
> > Joe> delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
> > Joe> feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
> > Joe> than technical review).
> >
> > Sam:
> > I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
> >
> > Seriously, I think most peop
> >> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >Spencer> - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow
> >Spencer> posting by non-members
> >
> > That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam
> > policy; someone needs to be approving non-
> > These tools are useful, but don't track (for example)
> > working group last calls. They don't even track interim
> > meetings, at least based on my limited checks.
>
> True on both counts. I have code in place to track WG last
> calls, but haven't had resources to handle the mails from
> al
> > (a) As Lars-Erik points out - almost every one does WGLCs,
> > but WGLCs are not a mandatory part of the standards-track
> > process. Do we actually need to give WGs this freedom,
> > especially for specifications that are (theoretically)
> > coming out of the WG?
>
> I have yet to see a WG d
> I'm saying that institutionalizing this, bureaucratizing it, is a
> mistake. This has the same feel as the end-to-end argument.
> Institutionalized, general-purpose rules will rarely meet the needs of
> a particular situation.
Very well stated. That conclusion applies here, as well as in most o
> > - Provide an issue tracker for -01+ drafts, integrated with the I-D
> > tracker.
>
> I'm considering as part of the tools work setting up an issue
> tracker for each WG as part of the WG status page. It will be
> closely integrated with the WG mailing list.
That would be excellent. When i
Very well stated!!!
The ASCII-requirement is (apart from being a compact, generic, free,
non-complex, document format) indirectly forcing people to really
make diagrams simple, i.e. not put too much crap (complexity) in one
single figure.
After having had to read documents from other organisation
> P.S. Some good arguments have already been made on both sides of the
> ASCII art issue. I, like many others, use Word, etc. editors
> capable of sophisticated graphics, and have to struggle to convert to
> ASCII art in I-Ds. IMO this is a ridiculous waste of time and loss
of
> information
> Word is of course out of the question since it is proprietary,
> undocumented, and unstable. I hope we have consensus on that.
I hope so too!
I initially thought the proposal to use M$ Word as an official
format was a joke. The IETF has a tradition of not caring how
our documents are prepared,
> I do believe that, if you want to do initial document
> preparation in Word, you should be able to do that. As others
> have suggested, no one I know of is really interested in
> standardizing on or requiring a particular editor. But, to do
> so, you need to be able to produce an editable forma
> I don't see why the editor you use needs to be open-standard.
> As far as I know the IETF is attempting to standardize IP-related
> communications protocols, not editors.
Anyone should be able to contribute to the IETF, not just those
who work for big companies who have been fooled into using th
>> If you do not know how to do that with Word, there is help to get.
>
> Yes, in RFC 3285.
>
> 3285 Using Microsoft Word to create Internet Drafts and RFCs. M.
> Gahrns, T. Hain. May 2002. (Format: TXT=34556 bytes) (Status:
> INFORMATIONAL)
>
> [YJS] Yes of course we all have used that
> Before I go on, I continue to be fascinated by the observation
> that, each time the "we really need pictures and fancy
> formatting and need them frequently" argument comes up, the vast
> majority of those who make it most strongly are people whose
> contributions to the IETF -- in designer, edi
ments that can guide us on
the way forward.
Cheers,
/L-E
Original Message
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 12 januari 2006 17:41
To: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB); Stewart Bryant
Cc: Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\); ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: PDF, Postscript
> From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize
> that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes
> because they think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because
> consumers want to buy them.
I do not think consumers in
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> How about people volunteer to help the effort or how about
>> we fund the RFC Editor to work with the XML2RFC people?
>> Simply having a working group does NOT produce running code.
>> Let's not have committees unless we have an answer to this
>> que
> Cogent arguments against? Very few people came out and
> said that we need nothing beyond ASCII art.
If you ask people whether *we* need nothing more than ASCII,
I would guess most of us would not claim that, since even
if *I* have not had a single case where something beyond
ASCII has been pr
>> My personal feeling is that graphics with too much
>> complexity to capture in ASCII-art is trying to describe
>> too much complexity in one picture and should thus be simplified.
>
> Or are using many words to replace the graphic - perhaps with
> less precision and greater probability of error
> On 25-jun-2006, at 22:41, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>> As an example, this .gif extracted from the Y.1711 OAM protocol
>> would be quite difficult in ASCII.
>
> I'm not surprised, as it contains too much information to be readable
> in a 925 pixel wide GIF. I think this supports Stephen's point
>> I further agree with Phillip (and Richard) that this is not an IAB
>> or even a Nomcom chair decision
>
> I disagree. The chair of a committee should have some freedom to
> decide what to do in cases not covered by the RFC. The
> decision he made (rerun the algorithm with correct input data)
37 matches
Mail list logo
