At 15.20 -0400 2000-04-07, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
I think it's important to carefully distinguish between these sorts of
redirection. Some clarifying text in the draft to this effect would
be helpful.
That is what I have asked the authors to do.
The problems with "intercepting proxies" are
At 17.29 -0700 2000-04-07, Peter Deutsch wrote:
LD is intended to sit in front of a cluster of
cache engines containing similar data, performing automatic
distribution of incoming requests among the multiple caches. It does
this by intercepting the incoming IP packets intended for a specific
IP
Hi folks and all,
At 10:04 06/04/00 JST, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Online business patents are, at large, ineffective and harmless.
We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
to make the servers illegal.
The SNMPCONF Working group intends to hold an interim meeting to work on all
items currently in our charter:
- The Best Current Practices Document
- The Differentiated Services Policy MIB Module
- The General Policy MIB Module
To better coordinate with other meetings, the location has
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Even if it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer
might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location
irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant.
that US patents are applicable even if both servers,
Hi Patrik,
Patrik Fältström wrote:
At 17.29 -0700 2000-04-07, Peter Deutsch wrote:
LD is intended to sit in front of a cluster of
cache engines containing similar data, performing automatic
distribution of incoming requests among the multiple caches. It does
this by intercepting the
Peter,
I think that by now I've made my points and defended them adequately and
that there is little more to be acheived by continuing a public,
and largely personal, point-by-point argument. If you want to continue
this in private mail I'll consider it.
The simple fact is that I believe
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... stuff deleted
As we have done with the NAT WG, it is
often useful to accurately document the drawbacks of a
common practice as well as to encourage exploration of
alternatives.
From my point of view there were significant forces within the
g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
Peter,
I think that by now I've made my points and defended them adequately and
that there is little more to be acheived by continuing a public,
and largely personal, point-by-point argument. If you want to continue
this in private mail I'll consider it.
Okay,
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:28:12 EDT, Keith Moore said:
The simple fact is that I believe that the idea of interception proxies
does not have sufficient technical merit to be published by IETF, and
that IETF's publication of a document that tends to promote the use
of such devices would
Peter Deutsch in Mountain View wrote:
[in part you said]
I still object to your notion that it's not censorship since people can
always go elsewhere. Where does this lead? I see the day when people
can't publish a new directory service protocol because "The IETF has
endorsed LDAP for
Muchas Preguntas:
- Estas Buscando Empleo?
- Tienes empleo pero quieres uno mejor?
- No sabes donde dejar tu Curriculum?
- Eres Profesional o a punto de egresar?
- Ud es una Empresa y necesita hacer publicidad?
- Necesitas EMAIL Gratis?
- Necesitas Pagina Web Gratis?
- Ud es una Consultora o
Keith - I argued to keep the term "transparent routing" in the
NAT terminology RFC (RFC 2663). The arguments I put forth were
solely mine and not influenced by my employer or anyone else.
didn't say that they were.
Clearly, your point of view is skewed against NATs. It is rather
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith - I argued to keep the term "transparent routing" in the
NAT terminology RFC (RFC 2663). The arguments I put forth were
solely mine and not influenced by my employer or anyone else.
didn't say that they were.
Clearly, your point of
Publication under Informational and Experimental has typically been
open to all wishing it.
uh, no. this is a common myth, but it's not true, and hasn't been
true for many years.
I hope (and believe) that the *potential* for publication is open
to all, and that the process isn't biased
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry.. Your conclusion is based on a wrong premise.
The NAT group's draft documents speak for themselves.
My point exactly.
regards,
suresh
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with
as ye sow, so shall ye weep...in reading this thread i guess i saw
several problems:
oxymoron alert
"thought...patent"
tautology alert
"sufficiently expensive...lawyer"
internet bogon alert
"find the server"
is a server where the ip address, DNS name, lat/long of the CPU,
memory, disk, or
At 05:06 PM 4/8/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Publication under Informational and Experimental has typically been
open to all wishing it.
uh, no. this is a common myth, but it's not true, and hasn't been
true for many years.
First, let's be clear that your statement includes a
Keith Moore wrote:
The industry and their customers have already decided against you on
this one.
Industry people love to make such claims. They're just marketing BS.
The Internet isn't in final form yet and I don't expect it to stabilize
for at least another decade. There's still
One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
document not relevant.
I'm not hard-pressed to do this at all. In fact I find it
the problem with a "NAT working group" is that it attracts NAT
developers far more than it does the people whose interests
are harmed by NATs - which is to say, Internet users in general.
so by its very nature a "focused" NAT working group will produce
misleading results.
This bias
g'day,
Lloyd Wood wrote:
Well, look at the list of signatories to the Draft in question.
technical merits, please.
I was not arguing for the merits of the technology in question based upon who
signed it. In fact, I haven't tried to address the technical merits of the
specific document at
I'd like note my agreement with to the comments made by Dave Crocker.
And I would like to suggest that there is perhaps yet another aspect of
this debate:
The IETF recently made a strong moral statement against CALEA. That
statement carried weight; it was noticed; it had impact.
And that
Peter,
I don't think I would agree that NECP is out of scope for IETF.
I think it's pefectly valid for IETF to say things like "NECP
is intended to support interception proxies. Such proxies
violate the IP architecture in the following ways: ... and
therefore cause the following problems...
g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
document not relevant.
I'm not hard-pressed
I've come into this discussion rather late, however there is at least one
salient point which I believe that
Keith Moore has argued rather well...
In my understanding the role of the IETF is to promote the logical growth
and evolution of the Internet Protocols.
Whilst 'vendors' have massive
26 matches
Mail list logo
