Re: Favored Base32 Alphabet?
At 05:25 PM 10/2/01 -0700, Gordon Mohr wrote: There are multiple Base32 alphabets floating about in Internet-Drafts. For example, ABCDEFGHIJK MN PQRSTUVWXYZ 23456789 in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-dude-02.txt and ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 234567 in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-josefsson-base-encoding-02.txt Is there any officious IETF document or statement favoring one or the other Base32 alphabet for new work? Also, BASE32DIGIT = DIGIT / A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H / I / J / K / L / M / N / O / P / Q / R / S / T / U / V in RFC 2938. (I won't claim this is the best possible arrangement, or in any way an official preference; it just seemed to be an easy way at the time, kind of like an extension of hexadecimal. Hand transcription was not a significant requirement here.) #g Graham Klyne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Specification verification tools
Recently, the IESG sent a note describing and encouraging the use of formally verifiable means of protocol specification, in addition to English prose. To facilitate this effort, I will be setting a resource web page to provide information on mechanisms and tools. (Unless there is a formal IETF effort, of course.) For now, please send me pointers to tools and possible languages or other suitable means, including, for example, RFC 2234 (ABNF), ASN.1 as used for LDAP and SNMP, or XML schemas. Note that these tools are meant for verification, not for code generation. This is a freelance effort, and any statements or listings do not necessarily reflect official IETF or IESG policy or recommendations. Thank you. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
Re: Specification verification tools
That note mentioned ASN.1 and several others. Some language development that might be of interest that bridges both ASN.1 and XML can be found to various extents at: http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/en/xml/ http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010807S0038 http://www.ddj.com/news/fullstory.cgi?id=4341 http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2001-02-28-e.html http://xml.coverpages.org/xer.html This ASN.1 XML standards work should be completed next week at an ASN.1 group meeting in Orlando, FL, then immediately balloted. I understand that tools support for this work is slated for fourth quarter 2001 delivery. There is a free tools list on the first site listed, which I believe offers several ASN.1 syntax checkers as well as pointers to other free and for sale tools. Some of these are general, others quite specialized. The new ITU-T ASN.1 Project is in the process of compiling a list of verified ASN.1 modules that are being made freely available to anyone at http://www.itu.int:2001/ITU-T/asn1/database/. Currently these seem to include only ITU-T specifications, but I do not know what their intended scope may be. An on line base of correct IETF ASN.1 modules would certainly be useful. A note to the web master or contact might reveal more. And of course, all of the ASN.1 and SDL standards are now freely available from the ITU-T web site. A revision of ASN.1 is currently underway that will incorporate all of the TCs and amendments into a new 2002 edition. Phil Griffin Henning G. Schulzrinne wrote: Recently, the IESG sent a note describing and encouraging the use of formally verifiable means of protocol specification, in addition to English prose. To facilitate this effort, I will be setting a resource web page to provide information on mechanisms and tools. (Unless there is a formal IETF effort, of course.) For now, please send me pointers to tools and possible languages or other suitable means, including, for example, RFC 2234 (ABNF), ASN.1 as used for LDAP and SNMP, or XML schemas. Note that these tools are meant for verification, not for code generation. This is a freelance effort, and any statements or listings do not necessarily reflect official IETF or IESG policy or recommendations. Thank you. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
RE: Specification verification tools
Here are a couple to start with: Holzmann's book: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/gerard/popd.html http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~mass/comm.html http://www.sdl-forum.org/ including the introduction to SDL 88: http://www.sdl-forum.org/sdl88tutorial/index.html SDL Integrated Tool Environment: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Themen/SITE/ The regular FORTE/PSTV conferences http://uluru.poly.edu/~tmoors/net/confs.html#forte Tim Moors ___ Web: http://uluru.poly.edu/~tmoors/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Henning G. Schulzrinne Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 10:34 AM Subject: Specification verification tools Recently, the IESG sent a note describing and encouraging the use of formally verifiable means of protocol specification, in addition to English prose. To facilitate this effort, I will be setting a resource web page to provide information on mechanisms and tools. (Unless there is a formal IETF effort, of course.) For now, please send me pointers to tools and possible languages or other suitable means, including, for example, RFC 2234 (ABNF), ASN.1 as used for LDAP and SNMP, or XML schemas. Note that these tools are meant for verification, not for code generation. This is a freelance effort, and any statements or listings do not necessarily reflect official IETF or IESG policy or recommendations. Thank you. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
hello see this (DRP)
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES PLOT 225 KOFO ABAYOMI STREET VICTORIA ISLAND,LAGOS, NIGERIA. DIRECT FAX: 234 1 7590904. TEL; 234 1- 7591519 October 3, 2001 ATTENTION : THE PRESIDENT/C.E.O RE: URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL Dear Sir, I am DR. Mekudi Waziri (JP) Member Contract Award Committee of the above Department Terms of Reference My term of reference involves the award of contracts to multinational companies. My office is saddled with the responsibility of contract award, screening, categorization and prioritization of projects embarked upon by Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) as well as feasibility studies for selected projects and supervising the project consultants involved. A breakdown of the fiscal expenditure by this office as at the end of last fiscal quarter of 2000 indicates that DPR paid out a whooping sum of US$736M(Seven Hundred And Thirty Six Million, United States Dollars) to successful contract beneficiaries. The DPR is now compiling beneficiaries to be paid for the fourth Quarter of 2001. The crux of this letter is that the finance/contract department of the DPR deliberately over invoiced the contract value of the various contracts awarded. In the course of disbursements, this department has been able to accumulate the sum of US$38.2M(Thirty-eight Million, two hundred Thousand U.S Dollars) as the over-invoiced sum. This money is currently in a suspense account of the DPR account with the Debt Reconciliation Committee (DRC). We now seek to process the transfer of this fund officially as contract payment to you as a foreign contractor, who will be fronting for us as the beneficiary of the fund. In this way we can facilitate these funds into your nominated account for possible investment abroad. We are not allowed as a matter of government policy to operate any foreign account to transfer this fund into. However, for your involvement in assisting us with this transfer into your nominated account we have evolved a sharing formula as follows: (1) 20% for you as the foreign partner (2) 75% for I and my colleagues (3) 5% will be set aside to defray all incidental expenses both Locally and Internationally during the course of this transaction. We shall be relying on your advice as regard investment of our share in any business in your country. Be informed that this business is genuine and 100% safe considering the high-power government officials involved. Send your private fax/telephone numbers. Upon your response we shall provide you with further information on the procedures. Feel free to send response by Fax: 234-1-7590904 / TEL: 234-1-7591519 expecting your response urgently. All enquiries should be directed to the undersigned by FAX ,E-MAIL OR PHONE. Looking forward to a good business relationship with you. Sincerely, DR. Mekudi Waziri (JP) Oh, by the way, make the best Search Engine on the Internet, your startpage. Click on this link: http://www.searchalot.com/homepage.htm
RE: Specification verification tools
Hopefully, the venue of XML in the ASN.1 community will result in more open source PER runtime objects... -=Francois=- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil Griffin Sent: October 3, 2001 2:45 PM To: Henning G. Schulzrinne Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Specification verification tools That note mentioned ASN.1 and several others. Some language development that might be of interest that bridges both ASN.1 and XML can be found to various extents at: http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/en/xml/ http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010807S0038 http://www.ddj.com/news/fullstory.cgi?id=4341 http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2001-02-28-e.html http://xml.coverpages.org/xer.html This ASN.1 XML standards work should be completed next week at an ASN.1 group meeting in Orlando, FL, then immediately balloted. I understand that tools support for this work is slated for fourth quarter 2001 delivery. There is a free tools list on the first site listed, which I believe offers several ASN.1 syntax checkers as well as pointers to other free and for sale tools. Some of these are general, others quite specialized. The new ITU-T ASN.1 Project is in the process of compiling a list of verified ASN.1 modules that are being made freely available to anyone at http://www.itu.int:2001/ITU-T/asn1/database/. Currently these seem to include only ITU-T specifications, but I do not know what their intended scope may be. An on line base of correct IETF ASN.1 modules would certainly be useful. A note to the web master or contact might reveal more. And of course, all of the ASN.1 and SDL standards are now freely available from the ITU-T web site. A revision of ASN.1 is currently underway that will incorporate all of the TCs and amendments into a new 2002 edition. Phil Griffin Henning G. Schulzrinne wrote: Recently, the IESG sent a note describing and encouraging the use of formally verifiable means of protocol specification, in addition to English prose. To facilitate this effort, I will be setting a resource web page to provide information on mechanisms and tools. (Unless there is a formal IETF effort, of course.) For now, please send me pointers to tools and possible languages or other suitable means, including, for example, RFC 2234 (ABNF), ASN.1 as used for LDAP and SNMP, or XML schemas. Note that these tools are meant for verification, not for code generation. This is a freelance effort, and any statements or listings do not necessarily reflect official IETF or IESG policy or recommendations. Thank you. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
Re: Specification verification tools
Hopefully, the venue of XML in the ASN.1 community will result in more open source PER runtime objects... I can only shudder at the thought at what sort of monster the child of XML and ASN.1 would be... -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NetBSD Development, Support CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/
Re: hello see this (DRP)
All, This is appalling. How can this be STOPPED??? Any ideas please. In my view, I think the IETF board should take it to the appropriate authorities since the source of the message can be traced. Cel mekudi jasper wrote: DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES PLOT 225 KOFO ABAYOMI STREET VICTORIA ISLAND,LAGOS, NIGERIA. DIRECT FAX: 234 1 7590904. TEL; 234 1- 7591519 October 3, 2001 ATTENTION : THE PRESIDENT/C.E.O RE: URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL Dear Sir, I am DR. Mekudi Waziri (JP) Member Contract Award Committee of the above Department Terms of Reference My term of reference involves the award of contracts to multinational companies. My office is saddled with the responsibility of contract award, screening, categorization and prioritization of projects embarked upon by Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) as well as feasibility studies for selected projects and supervising the project consultants involved. A breakdown of the fiscal expenditure by this office as at the end of last fiscal quarter of 2000 indicates that DPR paid out a whooping sum of US$736M(Seven Hundred And Thirty Six Million, United States Dollars) to successful contract beneficiaries. The DPR is now compiling beneficiaries to be paid for the fourth Quarter of 2001. The crux of this letter is that the finance/contract department of the DPR deliberately over invoiced the contract value of the various contracts awarded. In the course of disbursements, this department has been able to accumulate the sum of US$38.2M(Thirty-eight Million, two hundred Thousand U.S Dollars) as the over-invoiced sum. This money is currently in a suspense account of the DPR account with the Debt Reconciliation Committee (DRC). We now seek to process the transfer of this fund officially as contract payment to you as a foreign contractor, who will be fronting for us as the beneficiary of the fund. In this way we can facilitate these funds into your nominated account for possible investment abroad. We are not allowed as a matter of government policy to operate any foreign account to transfer this fund into. However, for your involvement in assisting us with this transfer into your nominated account we have evolved a sharing formula as follows: (1) 20% for you as the foreign partner (2) 75% for I and my colleagues (3) 5% will be set aside to defray all incidental expenses both Locally and Internationally during the course of this transaction. We shall be relying on your advice as regard investment of our share in any business in your country. Be informed that this business is genuine and 100% safe considering the high-power government officials involved. Send your private fax/telephone numbers. Upon your response we shall provide you with further information on the procedures. Feel free to send response by Fax: 234-1-7590904 / TEL: 234-1-7591519 expecting your response urgently. All enquiries should be directed to the undersigned by FAX ,E-MAIL OR PHONE. Looking forward to a good business relationship with you. Sincerely, DR. Mekudi Waziri (JP) Oh, by the way, make the best Search Engine on the Internet, your startpage. Click on this link: http://www.searchalot.com/homepage.htm
Re: Favored Base32 Alphabet?
Thanks, Graham, for the pointer to yet a third possible alphabet. I think there may even be a fourth mentioned somewhere. Alexey Melnikov writes: Gordon Mohr wrote: Any chance that the Josefsson I-D will become an RFC of any sort? There is a good chance that it will become RFC as a document of SASL Working Group. (FYI, I can't find the SASL group at the IETF working-groups lists.) I would be really, REALLY interested in helping to make the Josefsson I-D the officially-sanctioned definition of Base32, so that there will be no ambiguity in any future standards work/ applications. What's the best IETF venue for (and shortest path to) such a goal? - Gordon
Re: Favored Base32 Alphabet?
Gordon Mohr wrote: Thanks, Graham, for the pointer to yet a third possible alphabet. I think there may even be a fourth mentioned somewhere. Alexey Melnikov writes: Gordon Mohr wrote: Any chance that the Josefsson I-D will become an RFC of any sort? There is a good chance that it will become RFC as a document of SASL Working Group. (FYI, I can't find the SASL group at the IETF working-groups lists.) Sorry, I meant soon to become a WG (waiting for AD approval). I would be really, REALLY interested in helping to make the Josefsson I-D the officially-sanctioned definition of Base32, so that there will be no ambiguity in any future standards work/ applications. What's the best IETF venue for (and shortest path to) such a goal? Alexey Melnikov __ R D, ACI Worldwide (formerly MessagingDirect Ltd.) phone 780.424.4922 x357 I speak for myself only, not for my employer. __
Re: Exception to MUST NOT
Robert, - Original Message - From: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 2:09 AM Subject: Re: Exception to MUST NOT To discover the reasons why ICMPs are sent in these cases you can go back and look in the archives - but I don't think that was the actual point of the original question. More one of how to interpret what to do in the exception cases. From the rule containing the exception alone you cannot - but read that with the rest of the doc and all is clear. Good point. If something is unclear, it's always recommendable to review the discussion archive and the whole document. However, the specification should remain as a specification, rather than a literature; If possible, one statement should stay clear by itself. 2 cents. Jiwoong kre
