IETF Discussion Archive - Thread Index

• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, John C Klensin
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, Stewart Bryant
  • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
    • Re: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, Andrew G. Malis
      • RE: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
      • Message not available
      • RE: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • RE: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
    • Re: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, Thomas Nadeau
      • Re: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard, 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, Stewart Bryant
• Re: WG Review: INtermediary-safe SIP session ID (insipid), Barry Leiba
• Re: Last Call: <draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-15.txt> (The Atom "deleted-entry" Element) to Proposed Standard, Peter Saint-Andre
• Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Xavier Marjou
  • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Julian Reschke
    • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Simon Perreault
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Riccardo Bernardini
  • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Yoav Nir
    • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Julian Reschke
  • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Hector
  • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Russ Housley
    • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Randy Bush
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Riccardo Bernardini
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Barry Leiba
    • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Dave Crocker
    • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Tony Hansen
    • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Xavier Marjou
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Yoav Nir
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Julian Reschke
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Yoav Nir
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Russ Housley
      • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Tim Bray
    • RE: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Murray S. Kucherawy
  • Re: [IETF] Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Warren Kumari
    • Re: [IETF] Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Barry Leiba
      • Re: [IETF] Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Warren Kumari
  • RE: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Murray S. Kucherawy
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Add a link to the HTML version in i-d-announce mails ?, Martin Rex
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt>, Randall Gellens
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt>, Peter Saint-Andre
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt>, 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), Bernard Aboba
• Updates to draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions, Adrian Farrel
• 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, Julien Meuric
• Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, ned+ietf
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Alexey Melnikov
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, ned+ietf
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, ned+ietf
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, ned+ietf
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Alexey Melnikov
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Alexey Melnikov
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, ned+ietf
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Alexey Melnikov
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, SM
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • Message not available
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, SM
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, John Levine
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, ned+ietf
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Alexey Melnikov
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, John R. Levine
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, ned+ietf
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Rolf E. Sonneveld
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, SM
    • RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, John Leslie
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Randy Bush
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Patrik Fältström
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Hector
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Hector
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Scott Kitterman
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, 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, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, 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, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, 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, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Randall Gellens
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, 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, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, 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, Randall Gellens
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Randall Gellens
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Mark Nottingham
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Randall Gellens
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Mark Nottingham
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Randy Bush
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Mark Nottingham
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Paul E. Jones
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Mark Nottingham
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Paul E. Jones
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice, Randall Gellens
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (DeprecatingUse of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to BestCurrent Practice, t.petch
• 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, Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk)
  • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
    • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
      • 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, Andrew G. Malis
      • 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, Ross Callon
  • 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, 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 based OAM) to Informational RFC, Loa Andersson
      • 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, Russ Housley
      • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
      • 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, 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, John C Klensin
      • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
      • 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, John C Klensin
      • 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, Stewart Bryant
      • 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, Russ Housley
      • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
      • 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, 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, John E Drake
      • 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, Russ Housley
      • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
      • 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, Rolf Winter
      • 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, ma . yuxia
      • 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, Zhenlong Cui
      • 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, John C Klensin
      • 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, Scott O. Bradner
      • 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Thomas Walsh
      • 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, t.petch
      • 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, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
    • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
      • 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, 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, Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk)
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • 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, Huub van Helvoort
    • 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, 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, Satoshi UENO
    • 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, Stephen Farrell
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, SM
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
    • Message not available
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, SM
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, SM
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, 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, Scott Kitterman
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Dave Crocker
    • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, 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, 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, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Barry Leiba
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Scott Kitterman
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, 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, Scott Kitterman
    • Message not available
      • Re: [marf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, SM
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Scott Kitterman
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, 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, Scott Kitterman
      • RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, 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, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard, Hector
• RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Murray S. Kucherawy
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple MailTransfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities)to Proposed Standard, t.petch
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Alexey Melnikov
    • RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard, Alexey Melnikov
• tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03, Dan Wing
  • RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03, Alberto García
    • RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03, Dan Wing
      • RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03, Alberto García
• Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-03, Ben Campbell
  • Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-03, Jouni Korhonen
• ISOC Fellowship to the IETF (IETF 84 and 85), Steve Conte
• Re: [PWE3] FW: 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, Stewart Bryant
• Re: [pcp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pcp-base-23.txt> (Port Control Protocol (PCP)) to Proposed Standard, Masataka Ohta
• draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request, The IESG
• DNS Rule Transmission is a new tool in anti-spam controls, Todd Glassey
  • Re: DNS Rule Transmission is a new tool in anti-spam controls, Hector
• 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, Daniel Cohn
  • 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, HUANG Feng F
    • 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, Loa Andersson
    • 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, Stewart Bryant
  • 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, Stewart Bryant
    • 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, Loa Andersson
      • 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, Thomas D Nadeau
      • 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, Loa Andersson
      • 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, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
      • 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, 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, Loa Andersson
      • 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, 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, Malcolm . BETTS
      • 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, Ross Callon
  • 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, Yoshinori Koike
• Fwd: Re: [tz] Astrolabe dismisses suit., Eliot Lear
• Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-08, Roni Even
• A nuance of interoperability reports, Murray S. Kucherawy
  • Re: A nuance of interoperability reports, Richard Barnes
    • RE: A nuance of interoperability reports, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: A nuance of interoperability reports, Randy Bush
      • Re: A nuance of interoperability reports, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: A nuance of interoperability reports, Randy Bush
      • Re: A nuance of interoperability reports, Martin Rex
      • Re: A nuance of interoperability reports, Hector
  • Re: A nuance of interoperability reports, Suzanne Woolf
• Conclusion of Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-convert and draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message, Pete Resnick
  • Re: Conclusion of Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-convert anddraft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message, t.petch
    • Re: Conclusion of Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-convert anddraft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message, Pete Resnick
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
  • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
    • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Tim Bray
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), David Harrington
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Paul Hoffman
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), David Harrington
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Peter Saint-Andre
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Paul Hoffman
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Paul Hoffman
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Peter Saint-Andre
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Roy T. Fielding
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Tim Bray
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Roy T. Fielding
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Tim Bray
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Paul Hoffman
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Yoav Nir
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Henrik Nordström
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Henrik Nordström
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Stephen Farrell
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Yoav Nir
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • RE: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), TEVFÄK ÅAHÄN
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Henrik Nordström
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Adrien de Croy
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Willy Tarreau
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Paul Hoffman
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Roy T. Fielding
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Willy Tarreau
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Wes Hardaker
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Albert Lunde
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Salvatore Loreto
      • Message not available
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Barry Leiba
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Michael Richardson
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), David Morris
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Hector Santos
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), David Morris
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Hector Santos
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Hector Santos
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Adrien de Croy
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Henrik Nordström
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Adrien de Croy
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), RJ Atkinson
    • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), RJ Atkinson
      • RE: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Leif Sawyer
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Doug Barton
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Julian Reschke
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Tim Bray
  • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Doug Barton
    • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Andrews
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Patrik Fältström
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Andrew Sullivan
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Patrik Fältström
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), John C Klensin
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Patrik FÃltstrÃm
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Willy Tarreau
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Andrews
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), John C Klensin
      • DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with (was: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)), Andrew Sullivan
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with (was: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)), Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with (was: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)), Andrew Sullivan
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with (was: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)), Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with (was: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)), Edward Lewis
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Patrik Fältström
      • RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Paul Hoffman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Doug Barton
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Paul Hoffman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Doug Barton
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • RE: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector Santos
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Stephan Wenger
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Stephan Wenger
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Doug Barton
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Doug Barton
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Paul Hoffman
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Doug Barton
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Doug Barton
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Patrik Fältström
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Patrik FÃltstrÃm
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector Santos
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Patrik Fältström
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Tony Finch
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Tony Finch
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Randy Bush
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Patrik Fältström
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Stephane Bortzmeyer
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Andrew Sullivan
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John R. Levine
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • RE: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Murray S. Kucherawy
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Tony Finch
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Stephane Bortzmeyer
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • RE: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Tony Finch
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Martin Rex
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Mark Andrews
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Donald Eastlake
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, ned+ietf
      • Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: field types, was provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Scott Kitterman
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Levine
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, John Leslie
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Patrik Fältström
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Hector
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with, Alessandro Vesely
      • Re: DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with (was: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)), Mark Andrews
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Doug Barton
  • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Peter Saint-Andre
    • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Tim Bray
    • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Nick Hilliard
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Peter Saint-Andre
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Paul Hoffman
    • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), SM
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Peter Saint-Andre
      • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Paul Hoffman
    • Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis), Mark Nottingham
• Explanation of the OCSP sign request, Robert Hernady
  • Re: Explanation of the OCSP sign request, Martin Rex
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard, Julian Reschke
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard, Vincent Roca
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard, SM
    • Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard, 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, 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, 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, Julian Reschke
• IRTF IPR Disclosure Rules, Eggert, Lars
• Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Noel Chiappa
  • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Alia Atlas
    • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Melinda Shore
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, John C Klensin
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Dave CROCKER
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Pete Resnick
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Noel Chiappa
    • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Nick Hilliard
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Randy Bush
      • RE: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Leif Sawyer
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Randy Bush
      • RE: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Leif Sawyer
  • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Noel Chiappa
    • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Dave CROCKER
    • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Pete Resnick
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Andrew Sullivan
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Melinda Shore
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, SM
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Pete Resnick
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Chris Grundemann
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Peter Saint-Andre
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Chris Grundemann
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Paul Hoffman
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, John C Klensin
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, SM
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Pete Resnick
      • Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules, Henning Schulzrinne
• SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol), Todd Glassey
  • Re: [DNSOP] SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol), Dmitry Belyavsky
  • RE: SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol), Worley, Dale R (Dale)
    • Re: SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol), Todd Glassey
  • Re: SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol), Masataka Ohta
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), Thomas Narten
  • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), John Scudder
    • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), Thomas Narten
      • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), John G. Scudder
    • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), Joel M. Halpern
    • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), Jari Arkko
      • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), John Scudder
      • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), Eliot Lear
      • Re: [lisp] WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp), Damien Saucez