IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [86attendees] Pie?

"John Levine" <ietf@johnlevine.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: 86attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 86attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0392C11E81D1 for <86attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tn8ACCjz-HV4 for <86attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE2E11E80D7 for <86attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 80240 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2013 20:01:10 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2013 20:01:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=51422c86.xn--30v786c.k1303; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=96JtGMQ5rzuaC+4tja1RCp3EvZwCESeaB9nLXHmrzqE=; b=PM9OLFxVwLYGmvkldY4WRHvt8tIH9Qts0RKp/UAvG5BOzZ3M69dda8/kg5BesmC+0mShHbCESzdLT2zdWL5tP48hK4rml2UNSThTGGvcNokiGnrj3NsabGYKkimv/KGdtSps87iCuvlqssm4n9vnbbIMsOXQsqBttuvAaCILDCI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=johnlevine.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=51422c86.xn--30v786c.k1303; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=96JtGMQ5rzuaC+4tja1RCp3EvZwCESeaB9nLXHmrzqE=; b=ALIwyJNkDTEi5gKl6H5CCJOsHPdR6Cgk2iK1IDM1tfKF/vJOBYqYPDoPReAePJdtk1LpmuYEC0CpWJCf4OvfWwCR/Tk1NYM/o8R+DJuDNtePWQsfPUfGUK5UNewqGY4mMvXqP6ks4CIpVQaen/OdlWgVU6OVy6nkhDLhAt5XyDk=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:00:47 -0000
Message-ID: <20130314200047.63176.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com>
To: 86attendees@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20130314143540.GA16749@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
Subject: Re: [86attendees] Pie?
X-BeenThere: 86attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <86attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/86attendees>, <mailto:86attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/86attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:86attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:86attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/86attendees>, <mailto:86attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:01:12 -0000

>I'm not sure it has practical consequences for the IETF. Is there even
>one RFC which uses the number Pi? ("pi" in RFC 2865 is a different
>beast)

RFC 3091.  Sheesh.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email