-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Another point to consider is "reachability." While some folks don't mind
flying two days in each direction to get to some location or another, I
generally consider a good balance between time and cost to be more
important than pure monetary considerat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> A wiser move would be to require all confidential documents
> to be encrypted and stored on a server. Before travelling
> such documents should be deleted from the laptop. On reaching
> the destination, the documents should be retrieved from the
> s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> We have IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses.
Doesn't this presume that if people used these locally assigned
addresses they would then NAT to a public address space?
I think the main thing folks might miss is that a lot of people really
wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> I think the main thing folks might miss is that a lot of people really
>> want all of this on a single address--while having multiple addresses
>> concurrent on a single machine is acceptable for larger machines,
>> specifically servers, having mul
> +1!!!
+2! I'm happy to see this happen...
Thanks for all the work.
:-)
Russ
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more
> people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would
> wane much as a result.
I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you get now. The point
of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Again, I agree that this is better for the Nomcom. The questions are:
>
> 1- is this better for the pool of applicants
> or does being on a public list provide
> a reason not to offer to serve?
There is also the o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the silent
> majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the
> vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.
> So I'm assuming they've been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> If
>> we had a DTD that worked in other pieces of software, it could be
>> converted using commonly available software into text formats.
>
> What is supplied with xml2rfc works fine with other pieces of software,
> per Ned's response.
Perhap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would consider being the go-between for the routing area.
:-)
Russ
IETF Chair wrote:
> I have just formed the Smart Power Directorate. Information about the
> Directorate can be found here:
>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/smart-power.h
> I read this draft and tried to participate in shaping into something I as
an
> operator believe useful in SIDR WG, but to no avail -- IMO because the
> protocol work, and then the requirements work, were largely completed
> already. I believe this approach will cause more harm than good and
res
11 matches
Mail list logo
