gmane.ietf.sip archive

2919 archived articles, newest first (page 7 of 30). Latest articles →

Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 - comment onsection 7
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 06:53:37 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22637
Re: Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications suchas Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:42:52 -0700
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22636
Re: Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications suchas Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 06:32:17 +0200
<[email protected]> • #22635
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:10:53 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22634
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 - comment on section 7
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 00:45:52 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22633
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 - comment on section 7
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:09:03 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22632
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:20:58 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22631
Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-eku
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:59:06 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22630
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:40:08 +0200
"Tan, Ya Ching (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email protected]> • #22629
Re: Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:09:59 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22628
Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:06:59 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22627
Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-domain-certs
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:59:59 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22626
I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-eku-04.txt
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
[email protected] • #22625
I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-domain-certs-03.txt
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
[email protected] • #22624
Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 01:16:54 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22623
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:40:01 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22622
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:37:50 -0500
"Spencer Dawkins" <[email protected]> • #22621
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:16:44 +0100
"Attila Sipos" <[email protected]> • #22620
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:16:12 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22619
I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-07.txt
Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
[email protected] • #22618
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:26:14 +0200
Jiri Kuthan <[email protected]> • #22617
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:54:39 -0700
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22616
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:35:13 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22615
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:04:31 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22614
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:16:55 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22613
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 17:23:51 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22612
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:00:06 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22611
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 09:41:08 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22610
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 05:57:44 -0600
Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> • #22609
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:55:42 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22608
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:45:30 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22607
RFC 5479 on Requirements and Analysis of Media Security Management Protocols
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
[email protected] • #22606
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:56:39 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22605
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:48:51 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22604
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:32:30 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22603
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:14:42 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22602
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:10:03 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22601
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:47:03 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22600
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:44:25 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22599
Re: My take on where we are with Identity
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:26:13 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22598
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:25:08 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22597
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:24:14 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22596
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:22:45 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22595
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:22:55 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22594
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:50:46 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22593
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:50:37 -0400
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> • #22592
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:21:56 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22591
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:09:43 +0200
Victor Pascual Ávila <[email protected]> • #22590
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:43:56 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22589
My take on where we are with Identity
Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:20:36 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22588
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:50:56 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22587
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:55:36 +0200
Jiri Kuthan <[email protected]> • #22586
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:57:11 -0400
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> • #22585
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:40:59 -0400
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> • #22584
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:01:51 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22583
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:59:26 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22582
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:55:26 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22581
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:49:32 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22580
Re: [Sip] Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:46:53 -0400
John C Klensin <[email protected]> • #22579
Re: [Sip] Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:01:53 -0500
Munjo Yu <[email protected]> • #22578
Re: [Sip] Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:46:02 -0400
Keith Moore <[email protected]> • #22577
Re: Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:21:55 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22576
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:50:40 -0600
Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> • #22575
Re: Media vs Signaling identity (was Re: francois' comments andwhy RFC4474 not used in the field)
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:08:09 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22574
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:15:51 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22573
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:06:09 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22572
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:48:05 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22571
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:38:30 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22570
Mlab Tools
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:35:50 -0700
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> • #22569
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:13:16 -0700
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> • #22568
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:59:46 +0000
"Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)" <[email protected]> • #22567
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:28:08 -0400
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> • #22566
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:55:11 -0400
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> • #22565
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:02:05 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22564
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:28:32 +0200
Jiri Kuthan <[email protected]> • #22563
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:27:15 +0200
Jiri Kuthan <[email protected]> • #22562
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:04:08 +0200
Jiri Kuthan <[email protected]> • #22561
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:46:02 +0200
Jiri Kuthan <[email protected]> • #22560
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:57:56 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22559
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:57:36 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22558
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:52:55 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22557
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:48:17 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22556
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:46:39 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22555
Re: Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:59:10 -0400
Keith Moore <[email protected]> • #22554
Re: Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:55:37 -0400
Keith Moore <[email protected]> • #22553
Re: Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:26:51 +0000
"eburger" <[email protected]> • #22552
Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:17:58 -0500
Munjo Yu <[email protected]> • #22551
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:40:29 +0000
"Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)" <[email protected]> • #22550
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:14:40 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22549
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:15:01 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22548
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:38:43 -0400
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> • #22547
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:38:42 -0400
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> • #22546
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:38:11 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22545
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:00:19 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22544
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:46:45 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22543
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:36:22 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22542
Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:26:35 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22541
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:17:50 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22540
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:15:45 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22539
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:54:27 +0000
"Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)" <[email protected]> • #22538
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.