RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77

merde
 
> From: ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77
> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:37:35 -0700
>
> Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
> ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest" (Douglas Otis)
> 2. Re: IPR/Copyright (Andrew G. Malis)
> 3. Re: IPR/Copyright (Ray Pelletier)
> 4. RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76 (aziz temmar)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:34:10 -0700
> From: Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
> Subject: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
> Cc: 'IETF Discussion Mailing List' <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Message-ID: <907A166A-E771-4930-BAE9-F4C7E496DFCE(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> > Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > > It's happened to me twice, with two different lists of his. I've 
> > > complained to him, but to no avail. I wonder if the CAN SPAM act 
> > > applies.
> > IANAL but my impression is that it definitely does apply, possibly 
> > multiply and possibly even with sanctions. As noted, this is a 
> > relatively tricky topic, but I am still pretty sure he goes far 
> > beyond the limits it defines.
> http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt
>
> The term "commercial electronic mail message" means any electronic 
> mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial 
> advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service 
> (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial 
> purpose). The term "commercial electronic mail message" does not 
> include a transactional or relationship message.
>
> Transactional or relationships include:
> a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing 
> commercial relationship involving the ongoing purchase or use by the 
> recipient of products or services offered by the sender; (iv) to 
> provide information directly related to an employment relationship or 
> related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved, 
> participating, or enrolled;
> ....
> where:
> It is the sense of Congress that -
> (1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who distribute 
> pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and introduce viruses, 
> worms, and Trojan horses into personal and business computer systems; 
> and
> (2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement 
> tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e- 
> mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes, including the 
> tools contained in chapters 47 and 63 of title 18 (relating to fraud 
> and false statements); chapter 71 of title 18 (relating to obscenity); 
> chapter 110 of title 18 (relating to the sexual exploitation of 
> children); and chapter 95 of title 18 (relating to racketeering), as 
> appropriate.
>
> CAN-SPAM also limits legal standing to network providers and law 
> enforcement.
>
> Since the IETF distributes email-addresses of subscribers, rather than 
> obscuring them, when email-addresses are obtained from received 
> messages that relate to some ongoing issue, this would not be 
> harvesting. It is not uncommon to even see emails that ask why you 
> unsubscribed. As long as the email relates to a prior relationship, 
> it would be difficult to make a strong case, especially when the IETF 
> is complicit in the distribution of the email-addresses. One might 
> even ask why are these email-addresses included if it would be illegal 
> to respond to these addresses.
>
> Unless the emails are deceptive in some way, CAN-SPAM does not seem to 
> apply. Perhaps the IETF may reconsider obscuring email-addresses.
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:53:33 -0700
> From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> Subject: Re: IPR/Copyright
> To: Scott Brim <swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Message-ID:
> <8c99930d0903242153v421bbc8csff313462af8c8e0a(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim <swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> 
> wrote:
> > John, I believe you read the consensus right. ?"authors obtain all of
> > the rights they are willing to".
> >
> > Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
> > > share an impression and suggestion.
> > >
> > > While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
> > > reopen old battles, etc., ?there is really only one issue at
> > > this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
> > >
> > > ? ? ? * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
> > > ? ? ? obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
> > > ? ? ? signoff from previous contributors or
> > >
> > > ? ? ? * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
> > > ? ? ? provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
> > > ? ? ? of the rights if they are willing to do that but
> > > ? ? ? otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
> > >
> > > > From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
> > > community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
> > > advocates. ? I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
> > > to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
> > > more Internet-Drafts are written.
> > >
> > > I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
> > > choice, then we are finished. ?The Trustees would presumably
> > > follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
> > > existing workaround as permanent, and ?we would all move on.
> > >
> > > IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
> > > subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
> > > people with better ways to spend their IETF time ?going into
> > > these efforts, etc.
> > >
> > > Of course, YMMD.
> > > ? ? ?john
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:09:00 -0400
> From: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>
> Subject: Re: IPR/Copyright
> To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Message-ID: <2FC25B29-08EA-441F-AC02-005583CBF0C8(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> > A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> I agree with the following additional mods to the Trust License Policy 
> at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf
>
> 6. Text To Be Included in IETF Documents
>
> c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations
> If an IETF Contribution contains pre-5378 Material as to which the 
> IETF Trust has not been granted, or may not have been granted, the 
> necessary permissions to allow modification of such pre-5378 Material 
> outside the IETF Standards Process, then the notice in clause (iii) may
> s/may/must
> be included by the Contributor of such IETF Contribution to limit the 
> right to make modifications to such pre-5378 Material outside the IETF 
> Standards Process.
>
> And let the Trust sort it out if and when a request is made and 
> approved by the community for modification of a document by a 3rd 
> party outside the standards process.
>
> Further I would add a section to the TLP regarding the registration of 
> 5378 licenses online only of those licenses obtained by the Trust to 
> approve the transfer of a document to a 3rd party. We don't need to 
> start an online registry of thousands of authors in the rare chance 
> the Trust may need the license one day.
>
> Ray
> Trustee
>
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim <swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> 
> > wrote:
> > > John, I believe you read the consensus right. "authors obtain all of
> > > the rights they are willing to".
> > >
> > > Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
> > > > share an impression and suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
> > > > reopen old battles, etc., there is really only one issue at
> > > > this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
> > > >
> > > > * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
> > > > obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
> > > > signoff from previous contributors or
> > > >
> > > > * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
> > > > provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
> > > > of the rights if they are willing to do that but
> > > > otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
> > > >
> > > > > From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the
> > > > community prefers the latter although the former has some strong
> > > > advocates. I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions
> > > > to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before
> > > > more Internet-Drafts are written.
> > > >
> > > > I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
> > > > choice, then we are finished. The Trustees would presumably
> > > > follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
> > > > existing workaround as permanent, and we would all move on.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, "finished" would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the
> > > > subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of
> > > > people with better ways to spend their IETF time going into
> > > > these efforts, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, YMMD.
> > > > john
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ietf mailing list
> > > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:38:22 +0100
> From: aziz temmar <abdel59et62(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)fr>
> Subject: RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76
> To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Message-ID: <COL104-W7391D576A2CE7C99FED586CD900(_at_)phx(_dot_)gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> arreter de m'envoyer vos pub non seleument je ne comprend pas l'anglais et 
> jai pas besoin merci 
>
> > From: ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76
> > To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:05:32 -0700
> >
> > Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
> > ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Proposal RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> > (Hallam-Baker, Phillip)
> > 2. Re: IPR/Copyright (SM)
> > 3. request for community assistance regarding TICTOC
> > requirements (Yaakov Stein)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:51:18 -0700
> > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
> > Subject: Proposal RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> > To: "Von Wootten, Karl" 
> > <Karl(_dot_)vonWootten(_at_)det(_dot_)nsw(_dot_)edu(_dot_)au>, "Ole
> > Jacobsen" <ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>, "Dean Anderson" 
> > <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
> > Cc: ietf-honest(_at_)lists(_dot_)iadl(_dot_)org, Fred Baker 
> > <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>, IETF
> > Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C3166155768B34B(_at_)mou1wnexmb09(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > I suggest that all mail that is cross posted to Mr Andreson IETF-Honest or 
> > whatever other spam list Mr Spammer decides to create be blocked from all 
> > IETF lists.
> >
> > That way any IETF-er who feeds the troll will not anoy the rest. And any 
> > IETF-er who blacklists Mr Spammer and his spam lists will have an 
> > Anderson-free experience.
> >
> > Since Mr Spammer's objective here is to cause the spillover into the IETF 
> > list, it is my expectation that he will cease this particular tactic.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Von Wootten, Karl
> > Sent: Tue 3/24/2009 7:29 PM
> > To: 'Ole Jacobsen'; Dean Anderson
> > Cc: ietf-honest(_at_)lists(_dot_)iadl(_dot_)org; Fred Baker; 'IETF 
> > Discussion Mailing List'
> > Subject: RE: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> >
> >
> >
> > Dean,
> > I feel that this issue has gone on Long enough It seems to me that by not 
> > allowing people to opt out and by unsolicited subscriptions you are only 
> > damaging your own reputation. I read what is posted to the lists I 
> > subscribe to so that I can do my job better. Not to waste time with these 
> > silly flame wars. Can we please put an end to this?
> >
> > Karl von Wootten
> > System Engineer Infrastructure Services
> > NSW Department of Education and Training
> > Ph: 02 84254515
> > Mob: 0406 996 300
> > Fax: 02 9942 9638
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> > [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Ole Jacobsen
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:41 AM
> > To: Dean Anderson
> > Cc: ietf-honest(_at_)lists(_dot_)iadl(_dot_)org; Fred Baker; 'IETF 
> > Discussion Mailing List'
> > Subject: Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"
> >
> > Dean,
> >
> > The web interface is broken. I don't have the initial password and it
> > won't send me a new one.
> >
> > Please cease and desist this nonsense and unsubscribe me promptly, I
> > never asked to be on your list, nor did anyone else that you added.
> >
> > You're a spammer, plain and simple.
> >
> > Ole
> >
> > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> > Cisco Systems
> > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > The password was sent in the subscription mail. The mailing list
> > > manager is GNU mailman, which is the same software many of the IETF
> > > lists uses, including IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) List management is 
> > > the same, and
> > > the welcome message includes the password. In addition, mailman provides
> > > a web interface, which can be found at:
> > >
> > > List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/options/ietf-honest>,
> > > <mailto:ietf-honest-request(_at_)lists(_dot_)iadl(_dot_)org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > List-Archive: <http://lists.iadl.org/pipermail/ietf-honest>
> > > List-Post: <mailto:ietf-honest(_at_)lists(_dot_)iadl(_dot_)org>
> > > List-Help: 
> > > <mailto:ietf-honest-request(_at_)lists(_dot_)iadl(_dot_)org?subject=help>
> > > List-Subscribe: <http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-honest>,
> > > <mailto:ietf-honest-request(_at_)lists(_dot_)iadl(_dot_)org?subject=subscribe>
> > >
> > > RFC2369 headers are included in each list message.
> > >
> > > Logs show that Ole Jacobsen was added on February 28, 2009, after a post
> > > to the IETF list.
> > >
> > > --Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
> > > > unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
> > > > so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.
> > > >
> > > > Ole
> > > >
> > > > Ole J. Jacobsen
> > > > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> > > > Cisco Systems
> > > > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> > > > E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing 
> > > > > list that
> > > > > has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as 
> > > > > he
> > > > > chooses?
> > > > >
> > > > > You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. 
> > > > > Someone set
> > > > > up a mailing list that was subscribed to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org and 
> > > > > filtered some of
> > > > > our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a 
> > > > > feed
> > > > > without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved 
> > > > > their
> > > > > subscriptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and 
> > > > > desist
> > > > > letter?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
> > > > > > list, and I'm unhappy about it. I don't know what his
> > > > > > current status is with regard to the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > > > > mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
> > > > > > this mailing list by snagging names from it and
> > > > > > putting us on his mailing list without asking. I'm also
> > > > > > not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
> > > > > > fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
> > > > > > he does not represent the IETF. This is a small problem
> > > > > > but a problem nonetheless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Melinda
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Ietf mailing list
> > > > > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Ietf mailing list
> > > > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ietf mailing list
> > > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > > --
> > > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> > > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> > > 617 344 9000 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > **********************************************************************
> > This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
> > privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
> > are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
> > **********************************************************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: 
> > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090324/d6bbfe3f/attachment.htm>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:12:10 -0700
> > From: SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
> > Subject: Re: IPR/Copyright
> > To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Message-ID: 
> > <6(_dot_)2(_dot_)5(_dot_)6(_dot_)2(_dot_)20090324165738(_dot_)031580b8(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> >
> > At 16:35 24-03-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
> > > I just attended the IPR ("Pre-5398 Problem") BOF and want to
> > > share an impression and suggestion.
> > >
> > > While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly,
> > > reopen old battles, etc., there is really only one issue at
> > > this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to
> > >
> > > * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by
> > > obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get
> > > signoff from previous contributors or
> > >
> > > * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as
> > > provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all
> > > of the rights if they are willing to do that but
> > > otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on.
> > That would be the "minimum solution". It does not require authors 
> > to act as lawyers, hire lawyers, or perform a risk assessment to 
> > figure out what they need to do.
> >
> > > I note that, if the community's preference is really the second
> > > choice, then we are finished. The Trustees would presumably
> > > follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the
> > > existing workaround as permanent, and we would all move on.
> > There is no pressing copyright problem to solve as there is the 
> > existing workaround. Unless there is a compelling reason for the 
> > first choice, I don't see a need to spend more time on this issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -sm 
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:06:01 +0200
> > From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s(_at_)rad(_dot_)com>
> > Subject: request for community assistance regarding TICTOC
> > requirements
> > To: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <424CDC689E5CEF4D9FEADE56A378D92202181B2FD5(_at_)exrad4(_dot_)ad(_dot_)rad(_dot_)co(_dot_)il>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The TICTOC WG is finalizing the scope of its requirements draft.
> >
> > As of now the draft has information regarding the timing requirements for
> > - Cellular Backhauling
> > - Circuit Emulation
> > - Test and Measurement
> > - ToD over the general Internet
> > we have still unintegrated information for
> > - Sensor networks
> > - Legal uses of time
> > - Industrial Automation
> > and we have removed two applications for lack of interest or feasibility
> > - Remote Telco
> > - Electric power distribution.
> >
> > We are still soliciting help in gathering requirements information for
> > - Uses of precise time in networking
> > - Metrology
> > If anyone can help in these latter applications, please contact the TICTOC 
> > chairs.
> > If no interest is expressed, we intend removing these applications from the 
> > list
> > of applications being considered.
> >
> > In addition, if someone feels we missed an application that requires
> > distribution of timing information, it is possibly not too late to consider 
> > its inclusion.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Y(J)S
> >
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: 
> > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090325/286fb03a/attachment.htm>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
> > End of Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 76
> > ************************************
> _________________________________________________________________
> In?dit ! Des Emotic?nes D?jant?es! Installez les dans votre Messenger ! 
> http://www.ilovemessenger.fr/Emoticones/EmoticonesDejantees.aspx
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/attachments/20090325/4aa2d519/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> End of Ietf Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77
> ************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Téléphonez gratuitement à tous vos proches avec Windows Live Messenger  !  
Téléchargez-le maintenant !
http://www.windowslive.fr/messenger/1.asp

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf