Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: IETF-822

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:44:02 -0600

On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:

> List address: [email-masked]

Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?

/psa

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:55:11 -0400

> Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year

Who cares about that? I think that it is *vital* that we discuss RFC 85 and fully explore all of the implications therein.

For example, *where* at the Illini Union will it be? What do we do if Phyllis doesn't reply in time? Who will bring the bluesheets?  How do I get from the airport to the Illini Union? And who fixes the clock in my room if the chambermaid doesn't?

I therefore propose that we create a [email-masked] list to fully (and finally) get to the bottom of these important questions, once and for all….

W

> /psa

---
Schizophrenia beats being alone.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:57:31 -0400

> I therefore propose that we create a [email-masked] list to fully (and finally) get to the bottom of these important questions, once and for all….

…. and wouldn't this have been awesome if I actually had [email-masked] in my paste buffer (like I thought  I did) and not [email-masked]. That way I would have sounded super-awesomely funny and not like I had miscalculated my meds….

W

--
It is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe.  It is equally vain
to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead 
    --  E.W Dijkstra, 1930-2002

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:46:59 +0300

> Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year

Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century.

Doesn't it coincide with the 1st season of Babylon 5?

Yoav

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:24:48 +0200

> Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century.
ASCII, of course. But the boilerplate will have changed.

---

From: Steven Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:13:19 -0400

> ASCII, of course. But the boilerplate will have changed.

Yes, but upgraded from US-ASCII to Federation of Planets-ASCII.

		--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:26:44 -0400

--On Friday, June 15, 2012 11:13 -0400 Steven Bellovin
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Well, I've started working on
>>> draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure
>>> what format would be an appropriate submission format in the
>>> 23rd century.

Can't be anything-ASCII unless there is an ANSI on Mars or
further out.

FoPSCII ?

Maybe, in the interest of interplanetaryization (i19n ?) and
multigalacticism (m13m ?) we should start using FoPSCII and
Galicode references in our documents and noting that ASCII and
Unicode are temporary substitutes.

    john

   john

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:49:30 -0500

At 01:46 AM 6/15/2012, Yoav Nir wrote:

>draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure what 
>format would be an appropriate submission format in the 23rd century.
>

a B5 reference... this doesn't happen often enough IMO

BTW - 2258 was the second season of B5.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Jun 2012 19:58:54 -0000

>Unicode are temporary substitutes.

It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference between
ASCII and FoPSCII is that the ASCII # is replaced by the modern
currency symbol, and, of course, they put the little gap back in the
vertical bar to resolve the concerns about religious and cultural
insensitivty.

R's,
John

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:08:11 -0700

> vertical bar to resolve the concerns about religious and cultural

The more important questions are: who invented FoPSCII and how old were 
they?

d/

ps. the less important question is how many folk don't get the reference?

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:20:57 -0400

--On Friday, June 15, 2012 19:58 +0000 John Levine
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference
> between ASCII and FoPSCII is that the ASCII # is replaced by
> the modern currency symbol, and, of course, they put the
> little gap back in the vertical bar to resolve the concerns
> about religious and cultural insensitivty.

Huh?   ISO/IEC 646 IRV (another candidate for a FoPSCII
precursor) replaces the ASCII $, not #, with that universal
currency symbol.  As for that vertical bar, sufficiently elderly
practitioners of the art of Character Confusion and Coding (CCS)
will recall that the ancient Earthling-Based Convention for
Difficult Information Coding included two peculiar characters: a
mathematical "not" sign that closely resembled Unicode's "⌐"
(U+2310) and that broken vertical bar.  Those characters spawned
multiple wars over how they should be mapped into "ASCII" and
"ISO/IEC 646" with one group arguing for caret and (solid)
vertical bar, another for tilde and exclamation mark, and a
third for exclamation mark and [solid] vertical bar.  After much
bloodshed, 16 and 32 bit character sets were invented so that
almost everyone could contemplate their cakes while eating them
and continued dissenters were tortured until they repented.

Those battles were repeated in the development of FoPSCII when
it was noticed that the 5th character of the Klingon alphabet
was confusable with both the not-sign, Greek upper case Gamma,
and  Latin "r".  In addition, the Klingon numeral 8 was easily
confused with Cyrillic "Ж".  This created a variant problem
that the Intergalactic Consortium for Arbitrary Names and
Numbers could not dismiss because of some of the advocates had a
more effective means of persuasion than merely hiring lawyers.

:-(

   john

---

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Jun 2012 17:44:14 -0400

Do we have to rehash all of this stuff AGAIN?

R's,
John