Re: Author's details in RFCs
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Ian Cooper wrote: But why must the author(s)/editor supply addresses and telephone numbers? And what should an independent author/editor with no affiliation provide? (Please don't tell me they should use their residential details - that's unacceptable.) I understand that in rare cases the RFC Editor will allow publications with only a persistent email address, but in that case I'm curious as to why we don't just go that route and do away with physically bound points of contact altogether. After all, they don't appear to serve any useful purpose (other than to provide headhunters a number to call). I agree completely. I've zero intention to provide anything other than: - name - affiliation - city, country - email address in any draft I'll write; I won't put in street address, phone number or anything because I don't want to be contacted that way based on a draft/RFC: email address will work, and if not, it will be more or less trivial to find another address that does work. And if a new email address couldn't be found, one probably don't want to be contacted about the issue anyway. -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
RE: Article: Mobile security flaw delivers yet another blow to IPv6
Hello James, The article that you are pointing to is over a year old. The Mobile IPv6 protocol has come a long way since then. If you follow the progress of the MIPv6 work on the Mobile IP WG list, you will realize that the WG is now in the final stages of completing the work on MIPv6. -Basavaraj - Original Message - From: Meritt James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:06 PM Subject: Article: Mobile security flaw delivers yet another blow to IPv6 The problems with Mobile IPv6 are frustrating for IPv6 proponents, who view wireless applications as the likely first adopters of IPv6. This frustration was evident at a meeting of the IETF's Mobile IP working group, which was held in Minneapolis on March 22. It's a setback for those who are eager to get IPv6 out there, says Steve Deering, a Cisco engineer who helped design IPv6 and serves on the IETF's Internet Architecture Board. The Mobile IP working group has been working on this since 1991. It's been a long process. Full article at http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0402mobileip.html -- James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA Booz | Allen | Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
Re: Article: Mobile security flaw delivers yet another blow to IPv6
I know. That wasn't what I was interested in, nor was that the section I quoted. What a guy said WAS of interest. But if folks are going to work themselves up into a froth over it (in particular you), why not just use the delete key? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello James, The article that you are pointing to is over a year old. The Mobile IPv6 protocol has come a long way since then. If you follow the progress of the MIPv6 work on the Mobile IP WG list, you will realize that the WG is now in the final stages of completing the work on MIPv6. -Basavaraj - Original Message - From: Meritt James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:06 PM Subject: Article: Mobile security flaw delivers yet another blow to IPv6 The problems with Mobile IPv6 are frustrating for IPv6 proponents, who view wireless applications as the likely first adopters of IPv6. This frustration was evident at a meeting of the IETF's Mobile IP working group, which was held in Minneapolis on March 22. It's a setback for those who are eager to get IPv6 out there, says Steve Deering, a Cisco engineer who helped design IPv6 and serves on the IETF's Internet Architecture Board. The Mobile IP working group has been working on this since 1991. It's been a long process. Full article at http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0402mobileip.html -- James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA Booz | Allen | Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566 -- James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA Booz | Allen | Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
Re: [idn] Re: 7 bits forever!
D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: I'm not saying that Quoted-Printable had no short-term benefits for its short-term costs. I'm saying that, viewed from our long-term perspective eleven years later, the failure to require 8-bit transparency was an amazingly stupid decision. From our present perspective, that's true. Back then, it might have been the best solution. Further, remember that the first MIME standards date back to 1992. Back then, Unicode was brand-new and UTF-8 only came with the 2.0 version in 1996. Without UTF-8, you just could not even think about using Unicode in message headers; and without Unicode, you could not solve the charset-labelling problem. This might not seem to be a problem in the Western world, which only uses ISO-8859-1 (with some exceptions) but it certainly was in Middle and East Europe, the Arabic world, the Far East etc. Just send 8bit does not work there because you don't know the charset. Probably the result would have been long-term 8-bit with no short-term kludges. Conceivably it would have been long-term 8- bit plus optional short-term Quoted-Printable. Either way, it would have been vastly better than what actually happened. The short-term kludges are already going away. The body of messages is now often sent in 8bit instead of qp. Some mailers will still convert it down to quoted-printable but that does not matter either because mailers will still have to support the short-term kludges to handle old mail and mail sent by/through systems that still need them. But we still need the charset parameter. The movement towards UTF- 8 everywhere is quite new. Actually, one could now write a specification that declares the headers to be UTF-8 or an unkown leagacy 8bit charset. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0
Re: Netmeeting - NAT issue
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: the technical solutions exist. what is needed is for more OS vendors to support v6 (and 6to4 on the host). What we do need are killer applications. Just imagine what would happen if Quake IV required IPv6[1]. ;-) Claus [1] and came with everything you need to make your host IPv6- capable, of course. -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0
Re: Article: Mobile security flaw delivers yet another blow to IPv6
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:25:09 CST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: the Mobile IP WG list, you will realize that the WG is now in the final stages of completing the work on MIPv6. It's a setback for those who are eager to get IPv6 out there, says final stages of completing the work is *NOT* the same thing as ready to deploy code. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg08053/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: PPP
* switching but a rose by any other name ...). So all of these, including * PPP, exist at layers 1-2 in the TCP/IP model (link, network, internetwork, * transport, application) ... * (catching up on old email) Note that this is not the common-accepted definition of the Internet layering model. The Host Requirements working grouip went through this in detail in 1988, and agreed on the definitions in section 1.1.3 of RFC 1122. Strictly speaking, there IS no network layer in the Internet model, although we commonly tolerate calling the Internet layer (layer 3) the network layer. Layer 2 is the link layer. Bob Braden
