Sent from my iPhone, wherein trimming posts is a challenge. :-)
On Mar 9, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> Suddenly I'm nostalgic for the days when bar BOFs were impromptu
> affairs that sprang up in, well, _bars_ & were of necessity free of
> PowerPoint infestation...
And replete with alco
And there was a time when a Request For Comments was intended to be an
informal note, we seem to have made a mess there as well.
What I find sad about the whole identity/authentication area is the
way that we have so many frameworks and frameworks of frameworks and
complexity for what is a very si
There will be a bar BoF on high assurance cryptographic APIs during IETF 77.
When: Tue, March 23, 2010 from 17:30 - 19:00 (tentatively)
Where: Mix Restaurant (in the Hilton Anaheim)
Menu available at:
http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/SNAAHHH-Hilton-Anaheim-California/dining.do#1
Commercial
> > I therefore request that these inappropriate changes in terminology
> > be backed out again. "Port number obfuscation" is a serious
> > misnomer; port numbers still are transmitted in the clear under the
> > methods presented in this draft; so "port number randomization" or,
> > for short, "p
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like
It's going to be tough for me to attend, but I would love to hear why
cryptoki, pc/sc or cdsa don't work for your use cases. Also, are you talking
about a specific kind of token? Soft tokens? 4758s? NCipher boxen? Smart
cards?
Is there a resource on the web describing the problem domain, or is thi
On Mar 9, 2010, at 10:03 PM, Dave Nelson wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone, wherein trimming posts is a challenge. :-)
>
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>
>> Suddenly I'm nostalgic for the days when bar BOFs were impromptu
>> affairs that sprang up in, well, _bars_ & were of necessit
On 3/10/2010 5:04 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> And there was a time when a Request For Comments was intended to be an
> informal note, we seem to have made a mess there as well.
>
> What I find sad about the whole identity/authentication area is the
> way that we have so many frameworks and f
The IESG has received an appeal. It can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf
JFC Morfin included these comments in the cover note:
>
> Basically this appeal documents that IDNA2008 enlight capacities
> and principles that are built in the Internet technology but th
Hi Russ,
The appeal appears to run 145 pages, at least in my PDF viewer.
Attempting to navigate
this, I see "points of appeal", which has the following text:
"This is why this appeal does not concern the IDNA 2008 document set,
as approved by the IESG, which is now of prime stable importance when
Ted:
There is an IESG Telechat tomorrow with 22 documents on it. Outgoing
ADs are trying to clear as much work as possible for the incoming ADs.
So, frankly, I've been focused on these 22 documents, and I will not be
able to read the 140+ page appeal until the IESG Telechat is over.
Thanks for y
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Ted:
>
> There is an IESG Telechat tomorrow with 22 documents on it. Â Outgoing
> ADs are trying to clear as much work as possible for the incoming ADs.
> So, frankly, I've been focused on these 22 documents, and I will not be
> able to read th
On 3/10/2010 3:20 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Hi Russ,
The appeal appears to run 145 pages, at least in my PDF viewer.
Attempting to navigate
this, I see "points of appeal", which has the following text:
...
Trying to combine this with the cover page text as best I can, this
appeal seems to reques
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
> cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully support such an approach (and did propose the same strategy to the
IESG while I was a mem
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
>> cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
>
> I fully support such an approach (and did propose t
On 3/10/2010 11:03 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Yes -- a good supply of solvents is necessary for many IETF discussions...
is that because candid discussion requires participation that is unvarnished?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_
> On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> >> The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
> >> cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
> >
> > I fully support such an approach (and di
> I do not believe the IESG is under any obligation to spend its
> precious time digesting such a mass of text to discern any actual
> grounds for appeal.
Legal systems have rules about vexatious litigants, people who
repeatedly file meritless actions that waste an unreasonable amount of
time and
+1
Bert
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
I fully s
19 matches
Mail list logo
