William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Conrad
>> writes:
>>
At his point, I will sit quietly for a while and let the WG comment
on whether they think that your proposed
alternative mitigation i
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Conrad
> writes:
>>> At his point, I will sit quietly for a while and let the WG comment
>>> on whether they think that your proposed
>>> alternative mitigation is adequate. On Friday, the WG chairs will
>>> gauge con
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Conrad
writes:
> [cc's cleaned up]
>
> Hi,
>
> > At his point, I will sit quietly for a while and let the WG comment
> > on whether they think that your proposed
> > alternative mitigation is adequate. On Friday, the WG chairs will
> > gauge consensus a
[cc's cleaned up]
Hi,
> At his point, I will sit quietly for a while and let the WG comment
> on whether they think that your proposed
> alternative mitigation is adequate. On Friday, the WG chairs will
> gauge consensus and I will take appropriate action.
Given the stunningly successful imp
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 04:19:47PM -0400, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Thanks for this proposal. At his point, I will sit quietly for a while
> and let the WG comment on whether they think that your proposed
> alternative mitigation is adequate.
My view is that recommending closing open recursors is a wa
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > > The fabrications made for this document amount to fraud on the public.
> >
> > Be careful about this kind of statement. In any interesting technical
> > discussion, we all run the risk of being wrong. I'm wrong sometimes and
> > I am sure that you
Dean,
Thanks for this proposal. At his point, I will sit quietly for a while
and let the WG comment on whether they think that your proposed
alternative mitigation is adequate. On Friday, the WG chairs will gauge
consensus and I will take appropriate action.
Ron
De
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ron Bonica wrote:
> > Your assertion that false statements, contrived attacks, discredited
> > sources, and lack of evidence of harm, are somehow not legitimate
> > reasons to dispute a document is also without basis, and indeed is
> > refuted by IESG actions in TLS-AUTHZ.
>
>
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Bill,
>
> That why in the next paragraph I said:
>
> > If you think that you have an alternative plan for mitigating this
> > attack, you might be able to resurrect open resolvers with a new draft
> > that describes this mitigation.
>
> Also, if Dean feel
Bill,
That why in the next paragraph I said:
> If you think that you have an alternative plan for mitigating this
> attack, you might be able to resurrect open resolvers with a new draft
> that describes this mitigation.
Also, if Dean feels that the alternative mitigation is so compelling
that h
Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Ron Bonica wrote:
>
>> Do you deny that the vulnerabilities described in this document *could*
>> be exploited? If this is your claim, and you can substantiate it, the WG
>> will entertain your objection.
>
> I'm asserting that whatever vulnerabilities
Folks,
Someone on DNSOPS points out that I am calendar challenged. September 5
has already past. I meant to say Friday, September 12.
Ron
Ron Bonica wrote:
> Dean,
>
> On the surface, I deem your objection to be without merit. Unless you
> can convince me othe
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Do you deny that the vulnerabilities described in this document *could*
> be exploited? If this is your claim, and you can substantiate it, the WG
> will entertain your objection.
I'm asserting that whatever vulnerabilities that do exist can be
mitigated in
13 matches
Mail list logo
