gmane.ietf.zeroconf archive

382 archived articles, newest first (page 2 of 4). Latest articles →

Re: WG ACTION: 1 week continued discussion [LL70] DNAv4 normative or informative?
Wed, 26 May 2004 11:42:20 +0100
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2796
Re: WG ACTION: 1 week continued discussion [LL63] Text should be more explicit
Wed, 26 May 2004 11:18:14 +0100
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2795
Re: WG ACTION: continued 1 week discussion [LL53] Forward references requested
Wed, 26 May 2004 11:12:04 +0100
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2794
Re: resolution of LL57
Wed, 26 May 2004 10:20:21 +0100
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2793
Re: resolution of LL52 LL54 LL55 LL56 LL57 LL58 LL59 LL60 LL61 LL62 LL64 LL65 LL66 LL67 LL68 LL69
Tue, 25 May 2004 18:00:29 +0200 (CEST)
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> • #2792
WG ACTION: 1 week continued discussion [LL70] DNAv4 normative or informative?
Tue, 25 May 2004 17:56:34 +0200 (CEST)
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> • #2791
WG ACTION: 1 week continued discussion [LL63] Text should be more explicit
Tue, 25 May 2004 17:55:28 +0200 (CEST)
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> • #2790
WG ACTION: continued 1 week discussion [LL53] Forward references requested
Tue, 25 May 2004 17:54:30 +0200 (CEST)
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> • #2789
resolution of LL52 LL54 LL55 LL56 LL57 LL58 LL59 LL60 LL61 LL62 LL64 LL65 LL66 LL67 LL68 LL69
Tue, 25 May 2004 17:52:37 +0200 (CEST)
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> • #2788
Re: remove
Thu, 20 May 2004 16:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
Mark C Wishneusky <[email protected]> • #2787
remove
Thu, 20 May 2004 16:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
Mark C Wishneusky <[email protected]> • #2786
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Wed, 19 May 2004 06:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2785
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Wed, 19 May 2004 10:05:27 +0100
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2784
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Wed, 19 May 2004 09:48:20 +0100
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2783
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Tue, 18 May 2004 15:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2782
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Tue, 18 May 2004 15:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2781
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Tue, 18 May 2004 13:51:39 -0700
Peter Johansson <[email protected]> • #2780
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Tue, 18 May 2004 14:48:22 -0700
"Jim Busse" <[email protected]> • #2779
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:32 +0100
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2778
Re: LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Tue, 18 May 2004 10:12:11 -0700
Peter Johansson <[email protected]> • #2777
LL70: Use of the term "valid"
Tue, 18 May 2004 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2776
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL67] Fix clause which forbids routable to LL communication
Mon, 17 May 2004 12:17:02 +1000
Aidan Williams <[email protected]> • #2775
Re: LL67
Sun, 16 May 2004 16:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2774
Re: LL65
Sun, 16 May 2004 16:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2773
Re: LL70
Sun, 16 May 2004 16:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2772
Re: LL64
Sun, 16 May 2004 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2771
Re: LL63
Sun, 16 May 2004 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2770
Re: LL60
Sun, 16 May 2004 15:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2769
Re: LL59
Sun, 16 May 2004 15:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2768
Re: LL58
Sun, 16 May 2004 15:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2767
Re: LL57
Sun, 16 May 2004 15:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2766
Re: LL56
Sun, 16 May 2004 14:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2765
Re: LL55
Sun, 16 May 2004 14:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2764
Re: LL54
Sun, 16 May 2004 14:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2763
Re: LL53
Sun, 16 May 2004 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2762
Re: LL52
Sun, 16 May 2004 14:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> • #2761
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait
Tue, 11 May 2004 15:54:20 -0400
Ralph Droms <[email protected]> • #2760
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait
Tue, 11 May 2004 12:43:02 -0700
"Elder, Alex" <[email protected]> • #2759
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL67] Fix clause which forbids routable to LL communication
Tue, 11 May 2004 14:47:07 -0400
Ralph Droms <[email protected]> • #2758
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait
Tue, 11 May 2004 14:42:58 -0400
Ralph Droms <[email protected]> • #2757
Please comment on [LL67] and [LL61]
Mon, 10 May 2004 16:47:42 +0200 (MEST)
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> • #2756
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific
Mon, 10 May 2004 16:40:06 +0200 (MEST)
Erik Guttman <[email protected]> • #2755
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific
Mon, 10 May 2004 08:44:20 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2754
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific
Mon, 10 May 2004 08:40:15 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2753
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Sat, 08 May 2004 08:24:11 +0700
Robert Elz <[email protected]> • #2752
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 17:21:05 -0700
"Christian Huitema" <[email protected]> • #2751
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific
Fri, 7 May 2004 16:30:46 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2750
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 16:04:57 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2749
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 15:57:52 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2748
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 15:57:10 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2747
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific
Fri, 7 May 2004 21:50:03 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2746
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL57] Straightforward editorial fixes
Fri, 7 May 2004 21:33:28 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2745
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL66] Additional statistical example
Fri, 07 May 2004 17:32:30 -0400
Ralph Droms <[email protected]> • #2744
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 07 May 2004 17:21:27 -0400
Ralph Droms <[email protected]> • #2743
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 21:12:15 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2742
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 13:50:06 -0700
"Christian Huitema" <[email protected]> • #2741
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL57] Straightforward editorial fixes
Sat, 08 May 2004 03:23:41 +0700
Robert Elz <[email protected]> • #2740
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Sat, 08 May 2004 03:21:23 +0700
Robert Elz <[email protected]> • #2739
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL60] Forward reference style
Sat, 08 May 2004 02:24:15 +0700
Robert Elz <[email protected]> • #2738
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL55] 'Prevent' is too strong
Sat, 08 May 2004 02:13:05 +0700
Robert Elz <[email protected]> • #2737
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL68] Stress constants are not user configurable
Fri, 7 May 2004 10:53:09 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2736
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific
Fri, 7 May 2004 10:52:22 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2735
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL57] Straightforward editorial fixes
Fri, 7 May 2004 10:51:55 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2734
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 10:46:39 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2733
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 07 May 2004 11:33:59 -0400
Ralph Droms <[email protected]> • #2732
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait
Fri, 7 May 2004 07:24:40 -0700
"Elder, Alex" <[email protected]> • #2731
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 07:14:38 -0700
"Elder, Alex" <[email protected]> • #2730
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL69] Move constants to beginning of doc
Fri, 07 May 2004 09:10:48 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2729
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait
Fri, 07 May 2004 09:08:03 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2728
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL60] Forward reference style
Fri, 07 May 2004 09:07:20 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2727
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL59] Wireless comment not needed
Fri, 07 May 2004 09:04:31 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2726
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL54] Consistent terminology for out of scope
Fri, 07 May 2004 09:02:20 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2725
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL52] Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor
Fri, 07 May 2004 09:00:05 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2724
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL69] Move constants to beginning of doc
Fri, 07 May 2004 08:56:33 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2723
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL68] Stress constants are not user configurable
Fri, 07 May 2004 08:52:42 -0500
"John C. Welch" <[email protected]> • #2722
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL70] DNAv4 normative or informative?
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:53:18 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2721
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL69] Move constants to beginning of doc
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:34:19 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2720
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL68] Stress constants are not user configurable
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:32:56 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2719
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL67] Fix clause which forbids routable to LL communication
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:30:27 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2718
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL66] Additional statistical example
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:27:30 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2717
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL64] Simplify some text
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:21:53 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2716
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:16:54 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2715
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait
Fri, 7 May 2004 12:00:40 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2714
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL60] Forward reference style
Fri, 7 May 2004 11:56:15 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2713
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL59] Wireless comment not needed
Fri, 7 May 2004 11:54:06 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2712
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL58] Duplicate inconsistent routable address definition
Fri, 7 May 2004 11:47:37 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2711
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL57] Straightforward editorial fixes
Fri, 7 May 2004 11:39:06 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2710
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL53] Forward references requested
Fri, 7 May 2004 04:21:32 -0700
"Elder, Alex" <[email protected]> • #2709
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL55] 'Prevent' is too strong
Fri, 7 May 2004 11:09:25 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2708
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL54] Consistent terminology for out of scope
Fri, 7 May 2004 11:05:57 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2707
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL53] Forward references requested
Fri, 7 May 2004 11:02:19 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2706
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL56] Contradictory text?
Fri, 7 May 2004 10:53:45 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2705
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL52] Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor
Fri, 7 May 2004 10:40:03 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2704
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL65] Need a requirement for multihomed hosts
Fri, 7 May 2004 09:56:28 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2703
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL52] Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor
Fri, 07 May 2004 05:52:45 -0400
Ralph Droms <[email protected]> • #2702
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Fri, 7 May 2004 09:34:35 -0000
"Philip Nye" <[email protected]> • #2701
RE: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly
Thu, 6 May 2004 23:01:02 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2700
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL68] Stress constants are not user configurable
Thu, 6 May 2004 23:00:12 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2699
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL66] Additional statistical example
Thu, 6 May 2004 22:58:37 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2698
Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL65] Need a requirement for multihomed hosts
Thu, 6 May 2004 22:57:27 -0700
Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]> • #2697
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.