Where results make sense

About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   PR   |   Contact us

Request for Comments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia RFC 1, entitled "Host Software", was written by Steve Crocker of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and published on April 7, 1969. Every RFC is available as ASCII text, but may also be available in other file formats; however, as of 2006 the definitive version of any standards-track specification is the ASCII version. In some cases those RFCs wouldn't be published at all, the early RFCs were often what the name says, simple "Requests for Comments" not intended to specify a protocol, administrative procedure, or anything else the RFC series is used for today. en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Request_for_Comments   (1343 words)

Roxen Community: RFC 2046 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types (Standards Track) The "partial" subtype is defined for partial RFC 822 messages, to permit the fragmented transmission of bodies that are thought to be too large to be passed through transport facilities in one piece. RFC 1341 also defined the use of a "NAME" parameter which gave a suggested file name to be used if the data were to be written to a file. However, unlike top-level RFC 822 messages, the restriction that each "message/rfc822" body must include a "From", "Date", and at least one destination header is removed and replaced with the requirement that at least one of "From", "Subject", or "Date" must be present. community.roxen.com /developers/idocs/rfc/rfc2046.html   (12686 words)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is an RFC, not a poll, 81.105.192.22. The RFC proposes to block/ban 3 Class B IP address ranges, totaling over 195,000 IP addresses, and cites as support the actions of users posting from 11 IP addresses over a time period that apparently reaches back to November 2004, 14 months ago. This is an RFC, not a poll, Baldghoti. en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/United_States_Congress   (9968 words)

Preliminary Draft Convention of Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments Comments may also be submitted by facsimile transmission to (703) 305-7575 or by electronic mail through the Internet to elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov. All comments will be maintained for public inspection in Room 902 of Crystal Park II, 2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Issues for Public Comment The USPTO is interested in assessing support for or opposition to the effort to negotiate a convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments and in obtaining comments on the proposed convention as it relates to intellectual property. Interested members of the public are invited to present written comments on any issues they believe to be relevant to protection of intellectual property or any aspect of the proposed convention as it relates to intellectual property. www.uspto.gov /web/offices/com/sol/notices/prdrconjud.html   (2342 words)

RFC-Editor Webpage The Requests for Comments (RFC) document series is a set of technical and organizational notes about the Internet (originally the ARPANET), beginning in 1969. In addition, the RFC Editor publishes as independent submissions some RFCs that are outside the IETF process but are relevant to the Internet community. The RFC Editor is the publisher of the RFCs and is responsible for the final editorial review of the documents. www.rfc-editor.org   (191 words)

FR Doc 04-1154 Further, we request comment on whether and to what extent the transport layers need to be modified in order to realize the full capabilities of IPv6, including the potential for significantly improved IP network performance. Commenters are requested to explain how the technical requirements for these protocol layers and dependencies of protocol layers supported by IPv4 (e.g., UDP and TCP) may be impacted by the use of IPv6. To the extent commenters support such an approach, we ask them to explain the specific authority under which such a mandate could be imposed (legislative or administrative), the timeline under which the mandate would operate, and the benefits and costs of imposing such a mandate. a257.g.akamaitech.net /7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-1154.htm   (9452 words)

Request For Comments - Computing Reference - eLook.org The RFCs are unusual in that they are floated by technical experts acting on their own initiative and reviewed by the Internet at large, rather than formally promulgated through an institution such as ANSI. The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standard writing done by individuals or small working groups has important advantages over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ANSI or ISO. The first was a Lewis Carroll pastiche; the second a parody of the TCP/IP documentation style, and the third a deadpan skewering of standards-document legalese, describing protocols for transmitting Internet data packets by carrier pigeon. www.elook.org /computing/request-for-comments.htm   (294 words)

The OSU Computer and Information Science Department The Internet Request For Comments (or RFC) documents are the written definitions of the protocols and policies of the Internet. This informational RFC describes the conventions to be followed by those in charge of networks and hosts in the Internet. This RFC is a commentary on the difficulty of deciding upon an acceptably distinctive hostname for one's computer, a problem which grows in direct proportion to the logarithmically increasing size of the Internet. www.cse.ohio-state.edu /cs/Services/rfc/index.html   (652 words)

Request For Comments (RFCs)   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21) S (Pages=56) (Format=.txt) (Obsoletes RFC 1920) (Obsoleted/Updated by RFC 2200) (STD 1) 1999 J. Elliott, "Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1900-1999", I 01/06/1997. S (Pages=36) (Format=.txt) (Obsoletes RFC 1410) (Obsoleted/Updated by RFC 1540) (STD 1) 1499 J. Elliott, "Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1400-1499", I 01/06/1997. DS (Pages=8) (Format=.txt) (Updates RFC 0951) (Obsoletes RFC 1395) (Obsoleted/Updated by RFC 1533) 1496 H. Alvestrand, J. Romaguera, K. Jordan, "Rules for downgrading PS messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the messages", 08/26/1993. www.graphcomp.com /info/rfc/rfc_list.html   (11860 words)

.us Request for Comments Comments submitted in electronic form may be sent to usdomain@ntia.doc.gov. Electronic comments should be submitted in the formats specified above. Comments received will be posted on the NTIA website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov. Detailed information on electronic filing is available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/efiling/. Comments should be numbered and organized in response to the questions set forth in this document. www.ntia.doc.gov /ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/dotusrfc.htm   (1813 words)

RFC .us Domain Space Commenters have suggested that an expanded usTLD structure that allows direct registrations under the usTLD as well as under specified second level domains would be most attractive for prospective registrants. The request for proposal, if issued, will be consistent with all pertinent U.S. Government procurement regulations, and will be posted in the Commerce Business Daily and on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's homepage at www.ntia.doc.gov. The comment period was extended to October 5, 1998, to afford interested parties a full opportunity to address the issues raised in the request. www.ntia.doc.gov /ntiahome/domainname/usrfc2/dotusrfc2.htm   (3855 words)

Request for Comments Search RFC index for a match on number, author, title, and/or keywords. Although every published RFC has been submitted to careful proof reading by the RFC Editor and the author(s), errors do sometimes go undetected. Download the RFC index file (large!) using FTP. www.rfc-editor.org /rfc.html   (192 words)

RFC.net repository of RFC STD BCP and FYI documents   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21) The process by which an RFC is produced is described in detail in RFC 2026. Further information on the RFC documents and the IETF, the body that produces them, can be had at http://www.rfc-editor.org, the home of the RFC Editor. While the RFC Editor was once a single individual, the legendary Jon Postel, it is now a group funded by the Internet Society. www.rfc.net   (175 words)

IETF RFC Page   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21) When in doubt, the RFC Editor Web Page is the authoritative source page. RFCs associated with an active IETF Working Group can also be accessed from the Working Group's web page via IETF Working Groups. where NNNN is the RFC number prefixed with zeroes as necessary to make a four digit number. www.ietf.org /rfc.html   (158 words)

Comments Requested on Application by Sbc Communications Inc. For Authorization under Section 271 of the Communications ... Comments Requested on Application by Sbc Communications Inc. For Authorization under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In-region, Interlata Service in the State of Texas (Cc Docket No. 00-4) Comments by interested third parties in support of or in opposition to SBC's application must be filed on or before January 31, 2000. The purpose of these meetings is to give interested parties an opportunity to inform Bureau staff of such issues prior to filing their written comments or reply comments. www.fcc.gov /Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da000037.html   (1142 words)

Requests For Comments Not all RFCs document protocols; some are simply for discussion or informational purposes, and a traditional series of April Fools' RFCs can be distinguished by their date. Care has been taken to preserve the content of the RFCs throughout, and the original text version of each RFC is available via a hyperlink from its Table of Contents. RFC 1350 - The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2) freesoft.org /CIE/RFC   (1016 words)

Request for Comments on Internet Domain Names To assist reviewers, comments should be numbered and organized in response to questions in accordance with the five sections of this notice (Appropriate Principles, General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs, Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters should address each section on a separate page and should indicate at the beginning of their submission to which questions they are responding. This request for public comment is not intended to supplant or otherwise affect the work of other public advisory groups, established under law. www.ntia.doc.gov /ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm   (1450 words)

Request for Comments - a definition from Whatis.com - see also: RFC Request for Comments - a definition from Whatis.com - see also: RFC A Request for Comments (RFC) is a formal document from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that is the result of committee drafting and subsequent review by interested parties. Of those that are intended to become Internet standards, the final version of the RFC becomes the standard and no further comments or changes are permitted. searchwinit.techtarget.com /sDefinition/0,,sid1_gci214264,00.html   (199 words)

What is Request for Comments? - a definition from Whatis.com - see also: RFC RFC is also an abbreviation for Remote Function Call. Change can occur, however, through subsequent RFCs that supersede or elaborate on all or parts of previous RFCs. The Information Sciences Institute (ISI) at the University of Southern California maintains a searchable index of all Requests for Comments from the IETF. whatis.techtarget.com /definition/0,289893,sid9_gci214264,00.html   (170 words)

U.S. Copyright Office - Orphan Works As requested by Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Office submitted its Report on Orphan Works to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 31, 2006. Concerns had been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership of such works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from incorporating such works in new creative efforts, or from making such works available to the public. The Office asked specifically whether there were compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative, regulatory, or other solution, and if so, what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders. www.copyright.gov /orphan   (328 words)

Reference.com/Encyclopedia/Request for Comments Once published and issued a number, an RFC is never canceled or depublished; it is instead superseded by the publication of a new one. RFCs can be obtained on the Internet from the RFC Editor http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html, the IETF http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html, or many other sites, principally using the Web, but also through anonymous FTP, gopher, and other Internet document-retrieval systems. Lawyers will notice that this is roughly analogous to the tradition in common law countries (including the United States, where the Internet was born) of never depublishing case opinions, but instead overruling them with new ones. www.reference.com /browse/wiki/Request_for_Comments   (2261 words)

Lifeblog: Request for comments: What is your strategy to integrate your Web product with the Mobile Lifestyle? Please leave a comment or send me a private email on your thoughts about this. Feel free to add or comment on this list of companies or what kind of questions you’d like to ask. A few disclaimers and comments: Of course, the goal here is to get a feel for what Web companies are doing in the mobile space and thus make some business suggestions. cognections.typepad.com /lifeblog/2005/10/request_for_com.html   (1450 words)

IETF Request For Comments (RFCs) The level of standardization that an RFC reaches is determined not only by "how good" the RFC is, but by how widely it is implemented and tested. Some RFCs are not solid standards, but they nonetheless document technologies that are of great value to the Internet and thus should be used as guidelines for implementing Internet mail programs. The official rules for how RFCs are made and how things become standards are stated in RFC 2026. www.imc.org /rfcs.html   (1209 words)

OTEXA- Federal Register Notices 04/07/2006 Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 01/05/2006 Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)((sanitary towels or tampons of viscose rayon staple fiber). 01/05/2006 Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)(textile flock made from various man-made staple fiber and tow). www.otexa.ita.doc.gov /fr.htm   (566 words)

Request for Comments Aca estan los RFC que mas me gustan (siii, no estoy loco, el amor de mi vida es el RFC822, lástima que no me da bola). RFC821 - SIMPLE MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL, el original de Jonathan B. Postel. RFC3285 - Using Microsoft Word to create Internet Drafts and RFCs. www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar /~esuarez/lecturas/rfc/index.shtml   (354 words)

feedback   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21) It may be something like, "another view" or "link to further information" or "supporting data from neuroscience" or "through the eyes of a shaman") (This can be anything from a brief comment to an essay or extensive quote from a published work or a link to another site on the web. Please try to keep it simple and to the point. www.wisdombase.org /suggestions.html   (239 words)

Golublog: An Anthropology Blog · Request for Comments   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21) Golublog: An Anthropology Blog · Request for Comments I’m wondering if I can do nearly as well for Rex, and here’s where you come in with the comments, Fearless Readers. This blog is protected by dr Dave's Spam Karma 2: 34753 Spams eaten and counting... alex.golub.name /log?p=437   (2007 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   Press   |   Contact us   Copyright © 2005-2007 www.factbites.com Usage implies agreement with terms.