Re: DNSng: where to discuss/get info?
Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote: > Did you follow the discussions that I initiated on > a similar set of topics on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] > mailing lists about two years ago? Nope, but what was the conclusion? Where (URL) is it archived? Basically, my question was because of IAB's assertion in RFC-2826 "IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root" ( http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2826.html ) > Bob Allisat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> followed up on that idea... I am not aware that he is interested in the technical aspect of DNS. > I am also interested in the answer to your question. >Rahmat> - is there any WG, or organization, or list, or whatever >Rahmat> which is actively discussing the TECHNICAL (not political) >Rahmat> aspect of how a new DNS scheme should be? Perhaps, we should discuss this in private. What I have in mind is somewhat of an "address book" that is publicly accessible, perhaps through an ordinary DNS. Since it is publicly accessible, it can be shared/adopted by others. But, still there will be a legal issue here. Since XYZZY lawyers believe that they are entitled to XYZZY.com, XYZZY.net, XYZZY.org, XYZZY.any.other.TLD, do they have right over the XYZZY definition in my private address book? regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - Jangan,jangan,samakan;VLSM-TJT dengan yang lain! A.Rafiq
draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
Hi All, >Wow. An I-D with 25 authors. I see we're starting to emulate the experimental >physics community! But what will we do when there are too many names to >fit on the first page? > > Noel 26 authors indeed, you forgot one :-) It simply shows the interest of the community for that work ! Rgds, Eric (the mad-editor-trying-to-synchronize-everything :-) Eric Mannie IP Backbone Networking IP Network Engineering EBONE Terhulpsesteenweg 6A 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium Tel:+32 2 658 56 52 Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52 Fax: +32 2 658 51 18 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF 50 BOF -- HIP
TUESDAY, March 20, 2001 1415-1515 Afternoon Sessions II Host Identity Payload (HIP) BOF Chair Tim Shepard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Area Director(s): Jeffrey Schiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Marcus Leech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Security Area Advisor: TBD Mailing Lists: General Discussion: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Subscribe: http://mail.freeswan.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec Archive: http://mail.freeswan.org/pipermail/hipsec/ Web Site: http://homebase.htt-consult.com/HIP.html Description of Working Group: IP has suffered for the lack of security. Efforts like IPsec and DNSSEC have added various levels of security to IP, but have not addressed some of the fundamental security deficiencies in IP. By adding a cryptographic Host Identity and a payload for its exchange between two hosts, we can greatly enhance the security of IP while addressing a fundamental flaw in IP. This flaw being the lack of a true identity for a host that is independent of how IP packets are routed to a host. By adding a Host Identity namespace to the IP protocol, the role of the IP address changes to simply a packet forwarding namespace, since all of the higher protocols are bound to the Host Identity. This provides for cleaner host mobility and addressing realm transition (i.e. NAT) methodology. However, adding a Host Identity provides for a new class of Denial Of Service attacks, and thus the Host Identity Payload (HIP) and its exchange protocol are carefully crafted to not only avoid introducing DOS attacks, but also to lessen the opportunity for the existing transport level DOS attacks. The working group will produce two standards-track documents: The Host Identity Architecture The Host Identity Payload and Protocol And one Informational document: The Host Identity Implementation Goals and Milestones: Feb 01 Submit HIP drafts Jun 01 Finalize HIP drafts Sep 01 HIP specification to standards track Internet-Drafts: Host Identity Payload Architecture - draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-02.txt Host Identity Payload And Protocol - draft-moskowitz-hip-03.txt Host Identity Payload Implementation - draft-moskowitz-hip-impl-01.txt No Request For Comments Tentative Agenda Agenda Bashing 5 min HIP presentation20 min Discussion 20 min WG Charter 10 min Wrap up 5 min
Revision of the Tao available
Greetings - on behalf of the User Services Working Group, I'd like to encourage everyone to take a look at the recently revised "Tao of IETF:" draft-ietf-uswg-tao-03.txt If you're new to the IETF, read the early parts of the doc to find answers to some of life's deep mysteries, previously known only to a select few (e.g., the shocking meaning behind the little colored dots seen on some people's badges.) If you're a long-time attendee, read the Tao and come to the USWG meeting (Monday at 1:00 p.m.) to let the editors know what you'd like to change. (Newcomers are cordially invited to the USWG meeting too.) Have fun reading, and see you in Minneapolis!
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
> > Title : Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) > Architecture > > Author(s) : P. Ashwood-Smith et al. > > Wow. An I-D with 25 authors. I see we're starting to emulate the experimental > physics community! Noel, this falls so incredibly short of the state of the high energy physics "art", the difference is like NCP and IPv6 address space. http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/top_status/prl_cdf.ps or http://www-d0.fnal.gov/www_buffer/pub/pub001_dzero_detector.ps
Re: draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
*> 26 authors indeed, you forgot one :-) *> *> It simply shows the interest of the community for that work ! *> *> Rgds, *> *> Eric (the mad-editor-trying-to-synchronize-everything :-) *> Based on that criterion, we can expect that some future RFCs will have hundreds of authors? Maybe we should include as authors everyone on the relevant working group mailing list? One would have to presume they are all interested. I agree with Noel's implication: are the Internet Drafts and RFCs becoming a vanity press? Bob Braden
note from the operational side of the house
I realize that this is more of an operator's nightmare than anything else, but nevertheless, some of you may be interested in this article: http://www.business20.com/content/channels/technology/2001/03/02/27329 I wonder if the future's most effective denial-of-service attacks will simply trigger semiautomatic "your customer XYZ isn't doing enough to protect our intellectual property, so disconnect them, or we'll increase your legal bills alot" claims from publishing houses and the like. This could be much harder to protect oneself against in the long term than even distributed flood attacks. I also wonder if this sort of thing is already happening. Sean.
