On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Instead of being an apologist for the problem, how would _you_
suggest we address these process, procedural, and organizational
issues?
If you look in the archives, in the past I've listed the things
that seem to be needed for those organizations to su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MAAWG is useful for particular subjects, not as useful for other subjects.
>I expect the same will be true for any forum.
>
What is the appropriate mechanism within NANOG?
I mean, given previous topics
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 12:39 AM, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Although you need a some overlap, I think you get much better "buy-in"
when people from the same industry are developing their operational
standards.
Well, MAAWG does that, and
On Jan 14, 2008 12:39 AM, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although you need a some overlap, I think you get much better "buy-in"
> when people from the same industry are developing their operational
> standards.
Well, MAAWG does that, and has produced a lot of good work in the
past. Ha
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
In addition to RFC2142, it would appear that these are largely
ignored just as much as any other operational IETF documents.
That's a shame.
The IETF (and other groups) developing "Best Common Practices" seem to
sometimes forget
1. Is it a practi
On Jan 13, 2008 12:05 PM, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.
> There is also ARF: Abuse Feedback Reporting Format from the Mutual
> Internet Practices Assocation.
> Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group has multiple documents
6 matches
Mail list logo
