IETF Discussion

• Thread Index

• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: SPF PTR Support [was SPF isn't going to change]
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: SPF PTR Support [was SPF isn't going to change]
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• SPF PTR Support [was SPF isn't going to change]
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: Hector Santos
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Douglas Otis
• Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: manning bill
• Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: IETF 88 - Registration Now Open!
  • From: Tim Chown
• Re: IETF 88 - Registration Now Open!
  • From: John Levine
• Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: Fwd: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: John Levine
• Re: IETF 88 - Registration Now Open!
  • From: manning bill
• Fwd: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
  • From: manning bill
• Re: [dnsext] full standards, Deprecating SPF
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [netext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-07.txt> (Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
• Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
  • From: Eric McMurry
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-trill-directory-framework-07
  • From: Black, David
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-07.txt> (Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
• RE: [Recentattendees] IETF 88 - Registration Now Open!
  • From: Mishra, Sanjay
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Levine
• Huawei to Host IETF 88 in Vancouver!
  • From: IETF Administrative Director
• Visibility of shepherd writeup
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Jelte Jansen
• RE: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: Dave Cridland
• RE: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: l.wood
• The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
  • From: Dave Crocker
• RE: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: l.wood
• Re: [dnsext] Deprecating SPF
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
  • From: Ben Campbell
• RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
  • From: Black, David
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Barry Leiba
• New IETF Trust Chair
  • From: IETF Administrative Director
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: SPFBIS LAST CALL: SenderID Framework (PRA, SUBMITTER)
  • From: S Moonesamy
• RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
  • From: mohamed.boucadair
• Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
  • From: Erik Kline
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Thomas Narten
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: WG Review: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir)
  • From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Olafur Gudmundsson
• SPFBIS LAST CALL: SenderID Framework (PRA, SUBMITTER)
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Jelte Jansen
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Leslie
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David Conrad
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last call of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: WG Review: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir)
  • From: Hannes Tschofenig
• Re: WG Review: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir)
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: WG Review: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir)
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Re: WG Review: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir)
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: WG Review: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir)
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-07
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Olafur Gudmundsson
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] there is no transitiion, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Bob Braden
• Re: [spfbis] there is no transitiion, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
  • From: Owen DeLong
• Re: WG overview - MILE video
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Jelte Jansen
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-07
  • From: Roni Even
• WG overview - MILE video
  • From: Moriarty, Kathleen
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: manning bill
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• RE: [CCAMP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt> (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.txt> (A Reputation Query Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.txt> (A Reputation Query Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• RE: [CCAMP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt> (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Fatai Zhang
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David Conrad
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt> (A Model for Reputation Reporting) to Informational RFC
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10.txt> (A Media Type for Reputation Interchange) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08.txt> (A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.txt> (A Reputation Query Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt
  • From: Andrew Allen
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
  • From: james woodyatt
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: Tony Hansen
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: SM
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: [dnsext] Deprecating SPF
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: [dnsext] Deprecating SPF
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Last call of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• RE: [CCAMP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt> (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: [dnsext] Deprecating SPF
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: [dnsext] Deprecating SPF
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
  • From: Mark Andrews
• RE: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-11.txt> (Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter) to Proposed Standard
  • From: lionel.morand
• RE: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-11.txt> (Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter) to Proposed Standard
  • From: lionel.morand
• RE: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-11.txt> (Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter) to Proposed Standard
  • From: lionel.morand
• Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
  • From: Lorenzo Colitti
• RE: Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Option for DHCPv6 Relay Agent' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-14.txt)
  • From: ATEC
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dotzero
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-11.txt> (Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stefan Winter
• Re: Academic and open source rate
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-11.txt> (Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stefan Winter
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David Conrad
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: SPF TYPE support
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David Conrad
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: SPF TYPE support
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: SPF TYPE support
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David Conrad
• Re: SPF TYPE support
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• SPF TYPE support
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: HLS
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: SM
• Re: Academic and open source rate
  • From: SM
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John R Levine
• Re: Anyone having trouble submitting I-Ds?
  • From: Robert Sparks
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• Re: Academic and open source rate
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: [rfc-i] [IAOC] Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Nico Williams
• Re: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Carter Bullard
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Vinayak Hegde
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: John C Klensin
• RE: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Black, David
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• RE: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Larry Masinter
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Tony Finch
• Re: [Dime] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-11.txt> (Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stefan Winter
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: SM
• Re: Anyone having trouble submitting I-Ds?
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Anyone having trouble submitting I-Ds?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: Vinayak Hegde
• Academic and open source rate (was: Charging remote participants)
  • From: SM
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
• Re: [IAOC] Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: [IAB] Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
  • From: Black, David
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Jeffrey Hutzelman
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Henning Schulzrinne
• IAOC Chair
  • From: The IAOC
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Anyone having trouble submitting I-Ds?
  • From: Benjamin Kaduk
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: David Harrington
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Mark Baugher (mbaugher)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Joe Hildebrand
• RE: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Anyone having trouble submitting I-Ds?
  • From: Benjamin Kaduk
• Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-07
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Henning Schulzrinne
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Sandy Ginoza
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Ray Pelletier
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: [IAB] Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• RE: [karp] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Black, David
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: David Morris
• RE: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Black, David
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Carlos M. Martinez
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Andy Bierman
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Turchanyi Geza
• RE: [karp] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Uma Chunduri
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Graham Klyne
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Marc Petit-Huguenin
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• Re: Charging remote participants
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Charging remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Joel M. Halpern
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Wesley Eddy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: CBOR and a tag for "critical"
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: CBOR and a tag for "critical"
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: CBOR and a tag for "critical"
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: CBOR and a tag for "critical"
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Joe Touch
• Re: [karp] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Stephen Kent
• CBOR and a tag for "critical"
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt> (A Model for Reputation Reporting) to Informational RFC
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10.txt> (A Media Type for Reputation Interchange) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08.txt> (A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09.txt> (A Reputation Query Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Graham Klyne
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Graham Klyne
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Harald Alvestrand
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Harald Alvestrand
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Harald Alvestrand
• Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• [no subject]
  • From: Unknown
• Re: [karp] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Harald Alvestrand
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Harald Alvestrand
• Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
  • From: IAB Chair
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andy Bierman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andy Bierman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFCPublisher
  • From: t.p.
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• cbor-05 (was: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard)
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Randy Presuhn
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• RE: RFC 6980 on Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
  • From: Stephen Nadas
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Joe Hildebrand
• re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: What RFC 2026 says
  • From: Dave Crocker
• What RFC 2026 says (was: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt)
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [rfc-i] Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Ray Pelletier
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Last Call: <draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-05.txt> (Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers) to Proposed
  • From: Graham Klyne
• Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Graham Klyne
• Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04.txt> (Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
  • From: Tony Finch
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: John Leslie
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Dave Cridland
• Re: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Radical Solution for remote participants
  • From: Douglas Otis
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: Alejandro Acosta
• Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
  • From: IETF Administrative Director
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: John Leslie
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• NOMS 2014 Call for Papers
  • From: Thomas Nadeau
• Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-trill-directory-framework-06
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: Vinayak Hegde
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: Vinayak Hegde
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• Re: Data collection for remote participation
  • From: Alejandro Acosta
• Data collection for remote participation
  • From: Vinayak Hegde
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-05
  • From: Peter Yee
• RE: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Larry Masinter
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Wesley Eddy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• TCPMUX (RFC 1078) status
  • From: Martin Sustrik
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Tim Bray
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Martin Thomson
• Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: John C Klensin
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
  • From: Black, David
• Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-04
  • From: Black, David
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: George Michaelson
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: George Michaelson
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: George Michaelson
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Jorge Contreras
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• RE: Faraday cages...
  • From: Christian Huitema
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Chris Griffiths
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Models of building platform standards
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-09.txt> (Out-of-Band Public Key Validation for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Andrew Feren
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: t.p.
• RE: Faraday cages...
  • From: John R Levine
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: Ray Pelletier
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Henning Schulzrinne
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Henning Schulzrinne
• RE: Faraday cages...
  • From: Christian Huitema
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Ole Jacobsen
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Joe Abley
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: manning bill
• Re: Faraday cages...
  • From: Chris Elliott
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Faraday cages...
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Paul Aitken
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Paul Aitken
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: RPS Accessibility
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Henning Schulzrinne
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: Douglas Otis
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: Andy Bierman
• Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• RE: RPS Accessibility
  • From: Robin Uyeshiro
• Microphone protocol
  • From: Marc Petit-Huguenin
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: RPS Accessibility
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: RPS Accessibility
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Joe Abley
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Joe Hildebrand
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Joe Abley
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: John Levine
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: RPS Accessibility
  • From: Brian Rosen
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Joe Hildebrand
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Joe Abley
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Douglas Otis
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Joe Abley
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Joe Abley
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Joe Hildebrand
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
  • From: Dan York
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Andrew Feren
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: John Levine
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: t.p.
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: John Curran
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: James Polk
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04.txt> (Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Chris Griffiths
• Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: [Trustees] The Trust Agreement
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Tobias Gondrom
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Gen-ART IETF LC review of draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-10
  • From: Roni Even
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF
• Re: Community Feedback: IETF Trust Agreement Issues
  • From: Olaf Kolkman
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: SM
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Dave Cridland
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: 6tsch BoF
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Spencer Dawkins
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: Ray Pelletier
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Spencer Dawkins
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: John R Levine
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Speaking of VAT
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Speaking of VAT
  • From: John Levine
• Re: procedural question with remote participation
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: Tim Chown
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: Aaron Yi DING
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: The Friday Report (was Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx)
  • From: John Levine