IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [86attendees] Pie?

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.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 2F65411E8126 for <86attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 ux0SbL2MV0dP for <86attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (mxout.myoutlookonline.com [64.95.72.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48ED01F0D09 for <86attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A67416CA9; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:28:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan
Received: from HUB012.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9E8416CA6; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BE235.mail.lan ([10.110.32.235]) by HUB012.mail.lan ([10.110.17.12]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:21:30 -0400
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Robin Wilton <wilton@isoc.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:22:02 -0400
Thread-Topic: [86attendees] Pie?
Thread-Index: Ac4g8ZWDnf8ohPlBSlWT9awZ/rOiDg==
Message-ID: <42A7EA0D-635F-4B5C-8940-D3CDDB2B6242@vidyo.com>
References: <20130314200047.63176.qmail@joyce.lan> <5BE9DA1C-A988-44D0-8D40-E9C96EAD28DC@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5BE9DA1C-A988-44D0-8D40-E9C96EAD28DC@isoc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_42A7EA0D635F4B5C8940D3CDDB2B6242vidyocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr" <bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr>, "86attendees@ietf.org" <86attendees@ietf.org>, John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com>
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 20:22:12 -0000

I'm disappointed the RFC editor at the time didn't manage to make it RFC 3141.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Robin Wilton wrote:

I'm strangely disappointed that draft was published on 4/1…  ;^)

(Maybe it was a couple of weeks late passing WGLC)

R

Robin Wilton
Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
Internet Society

email: wilton@isoc.org<mailto:wilton@isoc.org>
Phone: +44 705 005 2931
Twitter: @futureidentity




On 14 Mar 2013, at 16:00, John Levine wrote:

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.

_______________________________________________
86attendees mailing list
86attendees@ietf.org<mailto:86attendees@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/86attendees

_______________________________________________
86attendees mailing list
86attendees@ietf.org<mailto:86attendees@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/86attendees

--
Jonathan Lennox
jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email