IETF Discussion

• Thread Index

• Re: [conex] Last Call: <draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt> (ConEx Concepts and Use Cases) to Informational RFC
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Re: [conex] Last Call: <draft-ietf-conex-concepts-uses-04.txt> (ConEx Concepts and Use Cases) to Informational RFC
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Re: IETF.Fact.Check IETF Participants that were also at ICANN Costa Rica Meeting ?
  • From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
• IETF.Fact.Check IETF Participants that were also at ICANN Costa Rica Meeting ?
  • From: Jim Fleming
• Re: ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check "Improving HTTP starts with speed."
  • From: Hannes Tschofenig
• Re: ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check "Improving HTTP starts with speed."
  • From: Fred Baker
• Re: ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check "Improving HTTP starts with speed."
  • From: Hannes Tschofenig
• ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check "Improving HTTP starts with speed."
  • From: Jim Fleming
• ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check ? 2012 State of the Art according to the ISOC ?
  • From: Jim Fleming
• Re: Meetecho support fot Plenary session
  • From: Meetecho IETF support
• IETF.FACT.CHECK ....839 new Top Level Domains or more...plus the DIRTY.BIT
  • From: Jim Fleming
• IETF.Fact.Check on the ZOOM://BOX Protocol(s)
  • From: Jim Fleming
• IETF.Fact.Check on the ZOOM:// Scheme and ZOOM://BOX Architecture and the Inter.NOT
  • From: Jim Fleming
• Re: IETF.Fact.Check - .COM .NET .ORG Legacy DNS vs Peer-2-Peer DNS
  • From: Nick Hilliard
• IETF.Fact.Check - .COM .NET .ORG Legacy DNS vs Peer-2-Peer DNS
  • From: Jim Fleming
• response set assertions and extensions
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: IAB responds to ICANN questions concerning "The interpretation of rules in the ICANN gTLD applicant guidelines"
  • From: David Morris
• Meetecho support fot Plenary session
  • From: Meetecho IETF support
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Thierry Moreau
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Francis Dupont
• IAB responds to ICANN questions concerning “The Interpretation of Rules in the ICANN gTLD Guidebook”
  • From: Jim Fleming
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: Vinayak Hegde
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: John C Klensin
• OMA IETF MIF API Workshop - Room info
  • From: Hui Deng
• Re: Anti-Trust Policy BOF tomorrow
  • From: Marshall Eubanks
• Re: Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - 100/8 IANA
  • From: David Conrad
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: SM
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: Alexa Morris
• Anti-Trust Policy BOF tomorrow
  • From: Marshall Eubanks
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: Joel jaeggli
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: SM
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: Ray Pelletier
• Re: Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: SM
• Re: Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - 100/8 IANA
  • From: Dave Cridland
• Re: Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - 100/8 IANA
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Technical Plenary Captioned
  • From: Ray Pelletier
• Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - 100/8 IANA
  • From: Jim Fleming
• Re: Fact.Check IETF Meeting - 1460 registrations:
  • From: Francis Dupont
• Re: Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - Internet Engineering
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - Internet Engineering
  • From: Jim Fleming
• Re: Fact.Check IETF Meeting - 1460 registrations:
  • From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
• Fact.Check IETF Meeting - 1460 registrations:
  • From: Jim Fleming
• RE: FW: LastCall:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) toInformational RFC
  • From: Rui Costa
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (AnOverviewoftheOAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08.txt> ... to Full Standard
  • From: Alfred Hönes
• Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-04.txt> (Deprecate DES, RC4-HMAC-EXP, and other weak cryptographic algorithms in Kerberos) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overviewofthe OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC
  • From: Huub van Helvoort
• RE: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
• RE: [PWE3] FW: LastCall: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Ross Callon
• Re: [PWE3] FW: LastCall: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Malcolm . BETTS
• Re: FW: LastCall:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) toInformational RFC
  • From: Alia Atlas
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• Re: FW: LastCall:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) toInformational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• Re: [PWE3] FW: LastCall: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• Re: IPR requirements in document write-up
  • From: t.petch
• Re: [PWE3] FW: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Loa Andersson
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overviewofthe OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overviewof the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC
  • From: Huub van Helvoort
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: FW: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Alia Atlas
• RE: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Worley, Dale R (Dale)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-04.txt> (Deprecate DES, RC4-HMAC-EXP, and other weak cryptographic algorithms in Kerberos) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Joel jaeggli
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) to Informational RFC
  • From: Rui Costa
• FW: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Rui Costa
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Tony Finch
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overviewof the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• OMA IETF MIF API Workshop
  • From: Hui Deng
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Thomas Walsh
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Fred Baker
• Journals at the IETF - calling all contributors!
  • From: Ole Jacobsen
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) to Informational RFC
  • From: Huub van Helvoort
• R: RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: erminio.ottone_69@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Yoshinori Koike
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Fred Baker
• RE: הנדון: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Malcolm . BETTS
• Re: הנדון: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Malcolm . BETTS
• Re: [PWE3] FW: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Malcolm . BETTS
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Craig Finseth
• Re: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up
  • From: Barry Leiba
• RE: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up
  • From: Roni Even
• Re: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up
  • From: Simon Josefsson
• Re: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up
  • From: Stephan Wenger
• RE: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Worley, Dale R (Dale)
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Craig Finseth
• RE: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Worley, Dale R (Dale)
• Re: הנדון: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Alia Atlas
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
• R: הנדון: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
• R: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocationof anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T EthernetbasedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Zhenlong Cui
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Stephen Farrell
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Satoshi UENO
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>
  • From: Ryoo, Jeong-dong
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Huub van Helvoort
• Re: URIs and zone IDs
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• UMPIRE moderation experiments at IETF83
  • From: Simon Pietro Romano
• URIs and zone IDs (was: Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful)
  • From: John C Klensin
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T EthernetbasedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: t.petch
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T EthernetbasedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Loa Andersson
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Ed Juskevicius
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Ole Jacobsen
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Kevin P. Fleming
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Michael Richardson
• RE: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Eran Hammer
• VS: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: teemu.savolainen
• FW: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Knight, Frederick
• Beer and Gear
  • From: O'Reirdan, Michael
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Eric Burger
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Hector
• Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Francis Dupont
• RE: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: George, Wes
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Maarten vissers
• IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful
  • From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Henk Uijterwaal
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Andrew G. Malis
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Andrew G. Malis
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T EthernetbasedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• RE: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Richard Shockey
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC
  • From: Julian Reschke
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Rui Costa
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: jonne.soininen
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Joel jaeggli
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Joel jaeggli
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Melinda Shore
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: David Morris
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Joel jaeggli
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: David Morris
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Fred Baker
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Fred Baker
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: David Meyer
• Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Fred Baker
• Re: Trade show at IETF
  • From: Andy Bierman
• Trade show at IETF
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
  • From: IAOC Chair
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the"X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Kevin P. Fleming
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• RE: Bad ABNF
  • From: Worley, Dale R (Dale)
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Bad ABNF
  • From: SM
• Re: [savi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-12.txt> (SAVI Solution for DHCP) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Guang Yao
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: SIDR WG Virtual Interim Meeting, March 24, 2012
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the"X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: t.petch
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: t.petch
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Hector
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Hector
• Re: SIDR WG Virtual Interim Meeting, March 24, 2012
  • From: Ted Hardie
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Marshall Eubanks
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• RE: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Robert Sparks
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: ned+ietf
• RE: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Cyrus Daboo
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Sam Hartman
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Francesco Gennai
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Rich Kulawiec
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: John Scudder
• RE: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Marc Petit-Huguenin
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: IETF Mail Archive Tools RFI
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Re: IETF Mail Archive Tools RFI
  • From: SM
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Lixia Zhang
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: John C Klensin
• RE: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Dave Cridland
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Cyrus Daboo
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Michael Richardson
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Scott Brim
• Re: [83attendees] Usual recreational venue diatribe (was Ground transportation from/to CDG)
  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Hector
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• New ITS email list for discussing IPv6 and vehicular communications
  • From: Alexandru Petrescu
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Francesco Gennai
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Randy Bush
• RE: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• RE: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Ross Callon
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: ma . yuxia
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Brian E Carpenter
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: David Morris
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Robert Raszuk
• Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
  • From: Russ Housley
• RE: [PWE3] FW: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM)to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• Re: [IETF] Re: shared address space... a reality!
  • From: Warren Kumari
• Re: Paris IETF Codesprint
  • From: Robert Sparks
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: John Scudder
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Dino Farinacci
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: John Scudder
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: John Scudder
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Joel M. Halpern
• Re: shared address space... a reality!
  • From: Christopher Morrow
• Re: [83attendees] Usual recreational venue diatribe (was Ground transportation from/to CDG)
  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Fangyu Li
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Fangyu Li
• re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: lihan
• Re: GenART last call review of draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03
  • From: jouni korhonen
• Re: הנדון: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Rolf Winter
• Re: shared address space... a reality!
  • From: Turchanyi Geza
• RE: הנדון: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) toInformational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: shared address space... a reality!
  • From: Roger Jørgensen
• Re: shared address space... a reality!
  • From: Måns Nilsson
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: yang . jian90
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the"X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the"X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Noel Chiappa
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09
  • From: Roni Even
• הנדון: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Joel M. Halpern
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Ross Callon
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-09.txt> (Methodology for benchmarking MPLS protection mechanisms) to Informational RFC
  • From: Gregory Mirsky
• Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Re: [savi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-12.txt> (SAVI Solution for DHCP) to Proposed Standard
  • From: eric levy-abegnoli
• GenART last call review of draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03
  • From: Roni Even
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the"X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: t.petch
• IETF Mail Archive Tools RFI
  • From: Ray Pelletier
• Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Re: [PWE3] FW: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Loa Andersson
• IETF83 Audio Streaming info
  • From: Nick Kukich
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: John Scudder
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Bradley
• RE: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Eran Hammer
• Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
  • From: Jari Arkko
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Tony Finch
• RE: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Tony Finch
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• RE: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Andrew Sullivan
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• RE: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
• Re: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Andrew G. Malis
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
• RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03
  • From: Alberto García
• Re: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Re: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Thomas Nadeau
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt> (LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (DeprecatingUse of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to BestCurrent Practice
  • From: t.petch
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randall Gellens
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Paul E. Jones
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Paul E. Jones
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Martin Rex
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: [IETF] Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Warren Kumari
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: [IETF] Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt>
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt>
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Tim Bray
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Julian Reschke
• RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03
  • From: Alberto García
• RE: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• RE: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: WG Review: INtermediary-safe SIP session ID (insipid)
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-15.txt> (The Atom "deleted-entry" Element) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03
  • From: Dan Wing
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Tony Finch
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Rolf E. Sonneveld
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: [IETF] Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Warren Kumari
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Xavier Marjou
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Tony Hansen
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Randy Bush
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Hector
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Riccardo Bernardini
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Yoav Nir
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Simon Perreault
• Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?
  • From: Xavier Marjou
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Tony Finch
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Eliot Lear
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: t.petch
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Andrew G. Malis
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Alexey Melnikov
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Donald Eastlake
• Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T EthernetbasedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Russ Housley
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: John E Drake
• Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hector
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Levine
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hector
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt>
  • From: Randall Gellens
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM)
  • From: Bernard Aboba
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Updates to draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
  • From: Adrian Farrel
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Doug Barton
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Doug Barton
• RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Scott O. Bradner
• Re: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Julien Meuric
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Randy Bush
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: John Leslie
• Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Russ Housley
• RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: [marf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Mark Nottingham
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Stewart Bryant
• RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Dave Crocker
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Russ Housley
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Nick Hilliard
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Tim Bray
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Peter Saint-Andre
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Loa Andersson
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Adrien de Croy
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Russ Housley
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC
  • From: Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple MailTransfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities)to Proposed Standard
  • From: t.petch
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03
  • From: Dan Wing
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Julian Reschke
• Re: Conclusion of Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-convert anddraft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message
  • From: Pete Resnick
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard
  • From: SM
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard
  • From: Vincent Roca
• Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-03
  • From: Jouni Korhonen
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector Santos
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: Conclusion of Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-convert anddraft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message
  • From: t.petch
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Stephan Wenger
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Stephan Wenger
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: ned+ietf
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-03
  • From: Ben Campbell
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John R. Levine
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: Reminder: T-shirt Design Contest for IETF 83
  • From: Benson Schliesser
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Leslie
• Re: Reminder: T-shirt Design Contest for IETF 83
  • From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Alessandro Vesely
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: John Levine
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• ISOC Fellowship to the IETF (IETF 84 and 85)
  • From: Steve Conte
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Doug Barton
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Mark Andrews
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Scott Kitterman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Paul Hoffman
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Patrik Fältström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: John C Klensin
• Re: DNS Rule Transmission is a new tool in anti-spam controls
  • From: Hector
• Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
  • From: Hector
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Adrien de Croy
• Re: [dhcwg] TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery
  • From: Ted Lemon
• Re: Last Call: <draft-george-travel-faq-03.txt> (IETF meeting attendees' Frequently Asked (travel) Questions) to Informational RFC
  • From: david.black
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
  • From: Patrik Fältström