IETF Discussion

• Thread Index

• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Melinda Shore
• A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]
  • From: Marc Petit-Huguenin
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Mikael Abrahamsson
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Mikael Abrahamsson
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Mikael Abrahamsson
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Ole Jacobsen
• Re: Hello ::Please I need to know LEACH protocol standard???
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Glen Zorn
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: John Levine
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Glen Zorn
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Acoustic couplers
  • From: Dale R. Worley
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Ted Hardie
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Ole Jacobsen
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: More cache control for (X)HTML pages
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Thomas Narten
• More cache control for (X)HTML pages
  • From: Nathan
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Yoav Nir
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: SM
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Ben Campbell
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Tony Hain
• Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: meaning RFC 2119 (was Re:I'm struggling with 2219 language again)
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• meaning RFC 2119 (was Re:I'm struggling with 2219 language again)
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-08.txt> (Algorithm Agility Procedure for RPKI.) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stephen Kent
• RE: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Richard Barnes
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Bob Braden
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Ted Hardie
• Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06
  • From: Huub van Helvoort
• Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06
  • From: Bitar, Nabil N
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Richard Barnes
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Lou Berger
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Dave Cridland
• Re: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Ole Jacobsen
• Hello ::Please I need to know LEACH protocol standard???
  • From: Mahmoud Emam
• I'm struggling with 2219 language again
  • From: Dean Willis
• RE: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt
  • From: Ronald Bonica
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Tony Hain
• Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Ben Campbell
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dale R. Worley
• Re: Acoustic couplers
  • From: Steve Crocker
• Re: Acoustic couplers
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Acoustic couplers
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?)
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• Re: Acoustic couplers
  • From: Steve Crocker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Masataka Ohta
• Re: Acoustic couplers
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Carlos M. Martinez
• Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Masataka Ohta
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Carlos M. Martinez
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Masataka Ohta
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: t.p.
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Masataka Ohta
• Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome?
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?)
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: John Levine
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: SM
• Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome?
  • From: Warren Kumari
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: David Morris
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Livingood, Jason
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dale R. Worley
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Donald Eastlake
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• RE: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
• Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06
  • From: Bitar, Nabil N
• Re: 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: [ih] 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: Paul Vixie
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dmitry Burkov
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Carlos M. Martinez
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: SM
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Victor Ndonnang
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Fred Baker (fred)
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Jaap Akkerhuis
• LC comments on draft-laurie-pki-sunlight-05
  • From: =JeffH
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: [ih] 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: Lixia Zhang
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• Re: 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: Victor Ndonnang
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP
  • From: IETF Chair
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Janet P Gunn
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: John Day
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Masataka Ohta
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: SM
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Steven Bellovin
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Greg Shepherd
• travel guide for the next IETF...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Masataka Ohta
• Re: WCIT outcome?
  • From: Jorge Amodio
• WCIT outcome?
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Fw: Feedback Requested: Proposed IEEE RAC OUI Tier Restructuring
  • From: t.p.
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-06
  • From: Peter Yee
• Re: [sip-clf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-11.txt> (The Common Log Format (CLF) for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Framework and Data Model) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Vijay K. Gurbani
• RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Bharat Joshi
• IETF 93 Venue Announced
  • From: IETF Administrative Director
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-14.txt> (Automatic Multicast Tunneling) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Magnus Westerlund
• Re: Last Call: <draft-hanes-dispatch-fax-capability-06.txt> (Indicating Fax over IP Capability in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Gonzalo Salgueiro
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-hanes-dispatch-fax-capability-06.txt> (Indicating Fax over IP Capability in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hadriel Kaplan
• Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Ted Lemon
• RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: RAMAKRISHNADTV
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-0
  • From: Peter Yee
• Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Ben Campbell
• RE: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt
  • From: Ronald Bonica
• Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Ben Campbell
• RE: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Ronald Bonica
• Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Re: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Pete Resnick
• draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Donald Eastlake
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Geoff Huston
• RE: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Ronald Bonica
• Re: [trill] Last Call: <draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04.txt> (Requirements for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)) to Informational RFC
  • From: gayle noble
• Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Mahesh Jethanandani
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Matthew Morley
• Re: [karp] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Anantha Ramaiah
• Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Joel M. Halpern
• Re: [karp] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Nick Hilliard
• Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Nick Hilliard
• Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Nick Hilliard
• Re: Happy Holidays & Winter Break Notice
  • From: Steve Conte
• Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-11
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Happy Holidays & Winter Break Notice
  • From: Alexa Morris
• Internet Hall of Fame Celebrates Internet Leaders: Second Annual Induction Ceremony Set for June 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: [trill] Last Call: <draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04.txt> (Requirements for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)) to Informational RFC
  • From: Donald Eastlake
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Joel M. Halpern
• Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Nick Hilliard
• Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-06
  • From: Ben Campbell
• RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Manger, James H
• Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08
  • From: Paul C. Bryan
• Orlando IETF Codesprint
  • From: IETF Chair
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-06.txt> (IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Magnus Westerlund
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07 - array index for end ofarray
  • From: Bill McQuillan
• Re: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07 - array index for end ofarray
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-06.txt> (IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John William Atwood
• Last call comments on draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18.
  • From: Dale R. Worley
• Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-08.txt> (Algorithm Agility Procedure for RPKI.) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Eric Osterweil
• Re: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07 - array index for end ofarray
  • From: Martin Thomson
• Re: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07 - array index for end ofarray
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [pkix] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-schaad-pkix-rfc2875-bis-03.txt> (Diffie-Hellman Proof-of-Possession Algorithms) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Denis Pinkas
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Matthew Morley
• RE: [sip-clf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-11.txt> (The Common Log Format (CLF) for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Framework and Data Model) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07 - array index for end ofarray
  • From: David J. Biesack
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07 - array index for end ofarray
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Gen-ART LC review of draft-daboo-ical-vcard-parameter-encoding-02
  • From: Roni Even
• Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Running code draft -01
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Markus Lanthaler
• Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08
  • From: Roni Even
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Robert Sayre
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: John C Klensin
• The notion of "fast tracking" drafts (was: Re: Running code, take 2)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David J. Biesack
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David J. Biesack
• draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07 - array index for end ofarray
  • From: David J. Biesack
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David J. Biesack
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David J. Biesack
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: David J. Biesack
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: zhou . sujing
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Chuck Mortimore
• RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Nat Sakimura
• RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: zhou . sujing
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Chuck Mortimore
• Re: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: zhou . sujing
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Chuck Mortimore
• Re: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: zhou . sujing
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: t.p.
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: t.p.
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-08.txt> (Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0) to Proposed Standard
  • From: zhou . sujing
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Loa Andersson
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Ted Hardie
• RE: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Marc Blanchet
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Loa Andersson
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Marc Blanchet
• RE: Running code, take 2
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• RE: Running code, take 2
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Marc Blanchet
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Marc Blanchet
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Marc Blanchet
• RE: Running code, take 2
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: Running code, take 2
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: Presentation vs. Discussion sessions (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)
  • From: Randall Gellens
• call for papers - IEEE "From Research to Standards" workshop
  • From: Joe Touch
• Running code, take 2
  • From: Yaron Sheffer
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08
  • From: Peter Yee
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dick Franks
• Re: [trill] Last Call: <draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04.txt> (Requirements for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)) to Informational RFC
  • From: gayle noble
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Paul C. Bryan
• Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: James M Snell
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Pier-Luc Thériault
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Pier-Luc Thériault
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Randall Gellens
• RE: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Nick Hilliard
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Hannes Tschofenig
• Re: The flower standard
  • From: Pars Mutaf
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: John Levine
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• RE: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Dave Cridland
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-06.txt> (Increasing TCP's Initial Window) to Experimental RFC
  • From: Magnus Westerlund
• Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-05.txt
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Re: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt -- what signal are we attempting to sense?
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt -- what signal are we attempting to sense?
  • From: Ted Hardie
• Re: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt -- what signal are we attempting to sense?
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• draft-farrell-ft-01.txt -- what signal are we attempting to sense?
  • From: Ted Hardie
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Marc Blanchet
• RE: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• RE: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: English spoken here
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: English spoken here
  • From: Steven Bellovin
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Danny McPherson
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: English spoken here
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Scott Brim
• RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Lee Howard
• Re: A mailing list protocol
  • From: Martin Thomson
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Tony Hansen
• RE: A mailing list protocol
  • From: George, Wes
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Donald Eastlake
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Hannes Tschofenig
• A mailing list protocol
  • From: S Moonesamy
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Wes Hardaker
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Wes Hardaker
• Re: English spoken here (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)
  • From: Steven Bellovin
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Dave Crocker
• RE: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-07
  • From: Black, David
• RE: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: When do we ask community for opinion and When we produce an RFC for the community?
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Presentation vs. Discussion sessions (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Tim Chown
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: The flower standard
  • From: Pars Mutaf
• The flower standard
  • From: Pars Mutaf
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: joel jaeggli
• RE: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: "Martin J. Dürst"
• Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
  • From: Andrew G. Malis
• Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
  • From: Andrew G. Malis
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Geoff Huston
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: David Morris
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Ronald Bonica
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: SM
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Joel M. Halpern
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Bob Hinden
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Hannes Tschofenig
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: SM
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Fred Baker (fred)
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Fred Baker (fred)
• RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: George, Wes
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Marc Petit-Huguenin
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Marc Petit-Huguenin
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-05.txt
  • From: Mahesh Jethanandani
• Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-14
  • From: Chuck Lever
• Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-14
  • From: Peter Yee
• Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
  • From: Hannes Tschofenig
• comment on draft-crocker-id-adoption
  • From: Loa Andersson
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Elwyn Davies
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Elwyn Davies
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Carsten Bormann
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Elwyn Davies
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Dave Crocker
• RE: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: George, Wes
• RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: George, Wes
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Tim Chown
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft (off-topic)
  • From: SM
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: "Martin J. Dürst"
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: joel jaeggli
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Joel jaeggli
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Joel jaeggli
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: joel jaeggli
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: SM
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Re: English spoken here (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)
  • From: SM
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Arturo Servin
• Acculturation [was Re: PowerPoint considered harmful]
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: Presentation vs. Discussion sessions
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Presentation vs. Discussion sessions
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Presentation vs. Discussion sessions
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: joel jaeggli
• Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: Presentation vs. Discussion sessions
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Presentation vs. Discussion sessions (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: English spoken here (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Joel M. Halpern
• English spoken here (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)
  • From: SM
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: John Levine
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: SM
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: SM
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Dave Crocker
• PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Fernando Gont
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Richard Barnes
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Wes Hardaker
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: SM
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Suresh Krishnan
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Loa Andersson
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: John C Klensin
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: George, Wes
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
• NomCom 2012: Feedback Request - IAOC and TSV
  • From: NomCom Chair
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: SM
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Geoff Huston
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Pete Resnick
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: SM
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Melinda Shore
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: George, Wes
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Spencer Dawkins
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Geoff Huston
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Geoff Huston
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Geoff Huston
• RE: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Lee Howard
• Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randy Bush
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Randy Bush
• request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default
  • From: Wes Hardaker
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: SM
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: SM
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Barry Leiba
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: George, Wes
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Edward Lewis
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: t.p.
• RE: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Hutton, Andrew
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Geoff Huston
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Geoff Huston
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Bob Hinden
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: SM
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: Barely literate minutes
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: Barely literate minutes (was: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: John C Klensin
• When do we ask community for opinion and When we produce an RFC for the community?
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Abdussalam Baryun
• Re: ANRP 2013 - please nominate
  • From: Matthew Ford
• Re: mailing list memberships reminder -> passwords in the clear
  • From: Rich Kulawiec
• Pre-IETF work ( was - Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Olafur Gudmundsson
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Eliot Lear
• RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: Brian Trammell
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Dave Crocker
• When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
  • From: George, Wes
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Keith Moore
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: tglassey
• ANRP 2013 - please nominate
  • From: Matthew Ford
• RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
  • From: Randy Bush