> Subject: IPv6 only Plenary Makes the News
Isn't that just a press release from ISOC, being distributed by wire
services online?
-- Cos
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Alex Loret de Mola wrote:
> Dear Carsten: (And others who feel upset at the recent development)
>
> As someone who's been a (mostly silent, but frequently reading) member
> of this mailing list, I can understand your concern. However, can you
> propose a better way for them to contact members of
Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
> If the technology in the document to be standardized is
> unencumbered, then the fact that _some_ uses of that technology may
> run into encumbered territory is irrelevant, except to those who
> hate patents in general.
I think software patents are a bad idea, and wou
e new RR problem hasn't been solved is that the
solution is so recent (3 years old) that Microsoft hasn't implemented
it yet, obviously this doesn't constitute evidence that we need to
solve the problem again by developing a new protocol.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:10:28AM -0400,
Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now this is an interesting little giggle. I made it into a DNS
> timeline. Incredible.
>
> http://www.inaic.com/index.php?p=internet-dns-timeline
... a timeline of the DNS that documents the teeniest details, b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anybody have a reference on an authorization scheme that
> doesn't imply any authentication?
From:-line based email filters.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cos.polyamory.org/
-- WBRS (100.1 FM) -- [EMAIL PROT
pplicability or effectiveness)
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cos.polyamory.org/
"OSI is a beautiful dream, and TCP/IP is living it!"
-- Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF mailing list, 12 May 1992
elf-fulfilling.
It's easy to percieve a clique where there isn't one, if you're
expecting a clique.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Exodus Professional Services -- http://www.exodus.net/
"We all misuse the net for personal gain, one way or another."
-- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
s
an accident that that WG effort did not produce a standard, although
of course I can't prove anything about anyone's intent at the time.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Exodus Professional Services -- http://www.exodus.net/
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Ofer Inbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > "If farmers can be paid not to grow wheat, why can't IETF
> > > WGs be paid not to develop protocols?"
> >
> > We can. Just go work for
aries who can
freely change between fax or mail without changing the content of the
messages exchanged by their bosses.
NAT, as far as I can tell, is pretty much always a kludge, whether
it's natural or not. It doesn't make people happy unless obscurity
and reduced communication is what
e: 781-273-2380
-- (Ofer Inbar) [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- pager: 800-351-9387
t
want to see?
Yes, this particular thread is off topic if taken out of context.
Fortunately a single thread is easy to ignore, as long as it doesn't
recur repeatedly and keep spawning new threads. Could we please avoid
that? [Jim Fleming, too, would not have been a problem if he'd only
Paul Wouters wrote:
> Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been
> a heart attack.
Whoah. I had completely lost track of him in the past decade, but he
was one of the most memorable people I ever met through the IETF. We
met first at IETF 37 I think, in San Jose, and ke
Scott Brim wrote:
> These technical answers are all great "for use in Internet protocols"
> [3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to
> read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You
> could justify what's there now and ignore their problem, or (
YAO Jiankang wrote:
> "HUANG, JERRY (ATTLABS)" wrote:
> >What I am not so sure about is the sweeping statement that Americans
> >would likely have difficulties with the '-mm-dd' format. I walked
> >around the office and polled seven of my co-workers who happen to be
> >around (all engineers b
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
> (objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
> (which is not so easy to predict, but 2015 is a popular estimate). The
> rest is pretty good for a story in the non-technical media
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > So in my view the problem here is that when I pay for an X Mb/sec
> > connection at the moment I have no real way of knowing whether that is
> > really X Mb/sec all the time or X/n Mb/sec when I am using a servic
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Since the one legacy protocol that has a dependency on IP address constancy
> is FTP, it would seem to me to be much easier to upgrade FTP to remove the
> dependency than to try to control the network.
There are other protocols hiding out there.
MATIP, RFC2351 (not
On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> I'm a fan of reducing down to 2 levels, too. But it has nothing to
> do with how overblown the effort to get to Proposed is. (Well,
I feel like we already have a 2-level system.
What's the practical difference between Proposed and full Standard
I've never been able to get first level tech support at my ISP to
understand "latency" or "packet loss". They only understand "can you
load a web page?" This does not mean their ISP doesn't provide packet
loss and latency, standard with their service :)
More to the point, when I've been at hotel
Michael Dillon wrote:
> With the text above, don't be surprised when people learn that they can
> become bona fide IETF members by subscribing to the IETF discussion list and
> the new subscription volume swells exponentially. Given the contents of many
> of the letters received on the patent issu
> There are, it appears, many types of IETF RFCs, some which are intended to
> be called "Internet standards" and others which bear other embedded labels
> and descriptions in their boilerplate text that are merely "experimental" or
> "informational" or perhaps simply "proposed standard". One contr
On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>As part of a research project, we are working on automated
>diagnostics of network-related faults in residential, SOHO,
>conference/special event, hotel and similar networks. If you have
>observed errors that were hard for a lay person
If the main problem with leap seconds is their future
unpredictability, isn't there a compromise option between the status
quo and no more leap seconds? Couldn't they come up with a fixed
schedule for leap seconds for many centuries at a time, based on
current predictions of approximately how many
"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" wrote:
> Also, NAT provides the ability to connect a small network to a service
> provider that only provides a single DHCP address, or wants to charge
> extra for every device you attach to its network. NAT is a
> significant technical tool in the business conflict betwee
This PBS interview with Harvey Mudd president Maria Klawe, on the
subject of why fewer women go into tech & engineering fields, is
worth watching:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video/blog/2012/04/college_president_discusses_wo.html
-- Cos
Fred Baker wrote:
> > Question, did the IETF list setup disable the "non-member" email
> > notifications?
>
> Spam reduction. We apply the rule to all of our mailing lists, and it is very
> helpful.
I don't think that's what Hector asked.
The question isn't "do we block email from non-members
As a reader of RFCs, I've come to expect that 2119 words are always
capitalized, and that when the same words appear in lowercase or mixed
case they're not being used in the 2119 sense. This seems to be a de
facto standard, even though 2119 doesn't require it. I'm in favor of
continuing with this
Glen Zorn wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 13:25 -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> > On 21 July 2012 06:55, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > > This year Ramadan started yesterday, and ends on August 19. Moving the
> > > meeting one week in either direction would not have helped.
> >
> > But moving it to the s
lizhong@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 1-3 April 2016 will be holiday in China. If the time is 3-8 April, then
> many Chinese attendees have to give up the holiday. Would you propose
> another time? Thank you.
I think there's probably always either a major holiday somewhere or
another conference that t
Reading some of this discussion leaves me puzzled because I can't tell
which things that some people are saying are intended to be about
"dotless" use of domains, or are intended to be about the expansion of
top level domains in general.
The IAB's statement does not seem to be about whether or not
> >>What this brings to mind is that we used to have implicit DNS domain
> >>search in the early days of DNS. When edu.com accidentally hijacked
> >>a huge chunk of the Internet, most of the net very quickly got rid of
> >>implicit search, and we got the explicit DNS search feature that many
> >>p
Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/1/2013 10:50 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > In particular, the effect of humming versus
> >show of hands was pretty obvious.
>
> The fact that the results were so profoundly different should get our
> attention, enough to get us to consider specifying how to measure
> con
34 matches
Mail list logo
