csperkins
Re:We Need to Talk About the IPv8 Draft
on Thursday April 30, 2026 @04:41PM (#47967942)
“This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D). Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF. This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the IETF standards process.”
Re:Gwern's Perfume Reviews
on Friday July 18, 2025 @03:04AM (#44602014)
The book on which it is based is well worth reading too… the story “one of the most gifted and abominable personages in an era that knew no lack of gifted and abominable personages…”
Re:The GNU Name System IETF Draft
on Wednesday July 08, 2020 @10:20AM (#23770107)
> > Anyone can write an internet draft. Getting concensus on it is the hard part.
> Not really. RFCs in the Informational category don't need consensus:[1]
In practice, that's not been true for many years. The process was recently clarified: "IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus" https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8789.html
Re:Publicly Funded Research Should Be Publicly Available
on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @10:38AM (#11381752)
The major UK research funding councils have an open access policy for the next REF - http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/policy/
Re:Encrypted VoIP data is usually not secure
on Thursday June 13, 2013 @09:13AM (#5873833)
See also RFC 6562
Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science
on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @08:00AM (#2279381)
The IETF charges attendees $650 in meeting registration, and receives close to $1M/year in sponsorship from the Internet Society and industry (budgets on http://iaoc.ietf.org/). Free access to IETF standards is subsidised out of other fees...