gmane.ietf.provreg archive

1661 archived articles, newest first (page 13 of 17). Latest articles →

Re: lp:trademark_name field
Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:07:46 +1000
Wil Tan <[email protected]> • #2087
Re: lp:trademark_name field
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:04:50 -0700
Jothan Frakes <[email protected]> • #2086
Similarities with RFC 4725 / RFC 5076 & RFC 5105
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:32:01 +0200 (CEST)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #2085
Re: lp:trademark_name field
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:24:20 +0100
Gavin Brown <[email protected]> • #2084
Re: lp:trademark_name field
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:11:48 -0400
Eric Brunner-Williams <[email protected]> • #2083
Re: lp:trademark_name field
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:58:50 -0400
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2082
Re: lp:trademark_name field
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:08:44 +0200
Jens Wagner <[email protected]> • #2081
Re: lp:trademark_name field
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:02:34 +0100
Jim Reid <[email protected]> • #2080
Re: lp:trademark_name field
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:58:12 +0100
Gavin Brown <[email protected]> • #2079
lp:trademark_name field
Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:52:37 +0200
InterNetX - Volker Janzen <[email protected]> • #2078
Re: EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope
Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:24:07 +1000
Wil Tan <[email protected]> • #2077
EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope
Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:22:00 +0100
Gavin Brown <[email protected]> • #2076
Re: Test for Provreg list
Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:43:33 +0200 (CEST)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #2075
Re: Test for Provreg list
Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:08:20 -0400
Eric Brunner-Williams <[email protected]> • #2074
Re: Test for Provreg list
Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:49:24 +0200
Lars-Johan Liman <[email protected]> • #2073
Re: Test for Provreg list
Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:32:39 -0400
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> • #2072
FYI: Practice of Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)extension mapping for Chinese Domain Name
Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:51:12 +0100
Jaap Akkerhuis <[email protected]> • #2071
Re: secDNS-1.1: use of only one form of interface
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:37:21 -0400
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> • #2070
Re: secDNS-1.1: use of only one form of interface
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:16:08 +0200
Theo Kramer <[email protected]> • #2069
Re: secDNS-1.1: use of only one form of interface
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:08:50 +0200
Theo Kramer <[email protected]> • #2068
RE: secDNS-1.1: use of only one form of interface
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:53:52 -0400
"Michael Young" <[email protected]> • #2067
RE: secDNS-1.1: use of only one form of interface
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:16:44 +1000
Chris Wright <[email protected]> • #2066
Re: secDNS-1.1: use of only one form of interface
Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:39:03 -0400
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2065
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:39:56 -0400
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2064
secDNS-1.1: use of only one form of interface
Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:11:29 +1000
James Mitchell <[email protected]> • #2063
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:58:55 +0200
Patrick Mevzek <[email protected]> • #2062
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:01:46 +0200
Maarten Bosteels <[email protected]> • #2061
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:40:12 +0200
Jens Wagner <[email protected]> • #2060
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:28:37 +0200
Oliver Peter <[email protected]> • #2059
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:59:27 +0200
Jens Wagner <[email protected]> • #2058
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:26:58 -0400
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2057
Re: RFC5910 public client implementation
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:51:09 +0200
Ulrich Wisser <[email protected]> • #2056
RFC5910 public client implementation
Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:27:47 -0300
Frederico A C Neves <[email protected]> • #2055
Re: Presentation on EPP present and future
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:45:09 -0400
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> • #2054
Re: Presentation on EPP present and future
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:28:36 -0400
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2053
Re: Presentation on EPP present and future
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:30:17 +0200
Ulrich Wisser <[email protected]> • #2052
Re: Presentation on EPP present and future
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:43:31 +0200
Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> • #2051
Re: Presentation on EPP present and future
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:31:29 +1000
Wil Tan <[email protected]> • #2050
RE: Presentation on EPP present and future
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:20:46 +0200
"Michael Young" <[email protected]> • #2049
Presentation on EPP present and future
Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:00:57 +0200
Patrick Mevzek <[email protected]> • #2048
Re: RFC4310bis (RFC 5910) Has Been Published
Fri, 14 May 2010 00:15:35 +0200
Patrick Mevzek <[email protected]> • #2047
RFC4310bis (RFC 5910) Has Been Published
Thu, 13 May 2010 14:08:04 -0400
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2046
Registration Operations Mail List
Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:09:54 -0700
Edward Lewis <[email protected]> • #2045
Extending EPP Response Codes
Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:57:12 -0400
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> • #2044
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review
Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:43:09 -0400
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2043
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review
Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:58:35 -0800
[email protected] • #2042
draft-gould-rfc4310bis Approved
Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:56:46 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2041
Re: Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:39:51 -0500
Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> • #2040
Re: Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:18:26 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2039
RE: Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:30:44 -0500
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> • #2038
Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:33:50 -0500
Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> • #2037
Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:15:36 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2036
Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:56:25 +0000
[email protected] • #2035
Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:51:15 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2034
Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:08:16 +0000
[email protected] • #2033
RFC4310bis document writeup
Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:05:03 -0500
Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> • #2032
draft-gould-rfc4310bis-07.txt Submitted for Review
Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:14:41 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2031
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:39:45 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2030
RE: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:24:07 -0500
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> • #2029
Re: NITS review of draft-gould-rfc4310bis (pre-6 version)
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:05:27 +0100 (CET)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #2028
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:01:35 +0100 (CET)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #2027
NITS review of draft-gould-rfc4310bis (pre-6 version)
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:42:16 +0100
[email protected] • #2026
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:14:55 +0000
[email protected] • #2025
draft-gould-rfc4310bis-06.txt Submitted for Review
Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:10:00 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2024
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt Submitted for Review
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:38:17 -0600
Howard Eland <[email protected]> • #2023
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt Submitted for Review
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:36:02 -0600
Howard Eland <[email protected]> • #2022
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt Submitted for Review
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:50:42 +0100
Ulrich Wisser <[email protected]> • #2021
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt Submitted for Review
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:48:08 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> • #2020
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt Submitted for Review
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:31:19 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2019
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt Submitted for Review
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:17:01 -0600
Howard Eland <[email protected]> • #2018
Re: Looking for a Document Shepherd for rfc4310bis
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:09:14 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2017
Looking for a Document Shepherd for rfc4310bis
Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:39:25 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2016
draft-gould-rfc4310bis-05.txt Submitted for Review
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:06:54 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2015
Re: Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:51:22 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2014
Re: Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:33:42 -0600
Howard Eland <[email protected]> • #2013
Re: Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:53:13 -0500
Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> • #2012
Re: Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:00:40 -0600
Howard Eland <[email protected]> • #2011
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:26:01 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2010
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:41:57 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2009
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:35:31 +0000
[email protected] • #2008
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:04:46 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2007
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:55:28 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2006
Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:23:50 +0100 (CET)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #2005
draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:07:31 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2004
Re: 4310-bis progress
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:40:24 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2003
Re: off-list was Re: Revision of 4310
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:14:58 +0100
Klaus Malorny <[email protected]> • #2002
4310-bis progress
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:19:47 +0000
[email protected] • #2001
Re: Pandoras box - or not!? you decide
Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:59:44 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #2000
My verision of MaxSigLife's history was Re: ... 03 AD Feedback
Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:44:34 -0500
Edward Lewis <[email protected]> • #1999
Re: off-list was Re: Revision of 4310
Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:18:09 +0100
Ulrich Wisser <[email protected]> • #1998
Pandoras box - or not!? you decide
Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:06:07 +0100
Ulrich Wisser <[email protected]> • #1997
Re: off-list was Re: Revision of 4310
Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:20:56 +0000
Eduardo Duarte <[email protected]> • #1996
BOF / New Mailing List E2MD (E.164 To MetaData) DDDS application
Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:17:44 +0100 (CET)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #1995
Re: off-list was Re: Revision of 4310
Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:18:55 -0500
James Gould <[email protected]> • #1994
Re: RE: Last Call: draft-gould-rfc4310bis (Domain Name System(DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible ProvisioningProtocol
Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:22:18 +0100 (CET)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #1993
Re: DBSSEC in CH & LI
Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:54:57 +0100 (CET)
Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> • #1992
DBSSEC in CH & LI
Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:27:45 +0100
Jaap Akkerhuis <[email protected]> • #1991
Re: RE: Last Call: draft-gould-rfc4310bis (Domain Name System(DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible ProvisioningProtocol
Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:11:11 +0100
Jaap Akkerhuis <[email protected]> • #1990
Re: rfc4310bis 03 AD Feedback
Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:05:47 -0600
Howard Eland <[email protected]> • #1989
Re: off-list was Re: Revision of 4310
Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:51:55 +0000
[email protected] • #1988
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.