On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 26-aug-04, at 8:13, Pekka Savola wrote:
But what
I'm really worried about is that IP router alert -like options are
options which a hardware implementation cannot process. An attacker
can just specify an undefined router alert option
hi pekka,
Thanks for your reasonable note, Hannes.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
- there have been a number of discussions about the
bandwidth broker
concept in the past and the disadvantages are known. (my personal
opinion) if it boils down to the protocol details
John,
We are in agreement that key strategic decisions have to be made
with the informed consent of the community. Harald and I have
made the commitment to put as much on the table as is possible
to have a rational open discussion that should come before that consent
phase. That's the commitment
leslie,
you wrote, in response to john:
We are in agreement that key strategic decisions have to be made
with the informed consent of the community. Harald and I have
made the commitment to put as much on the table as is possible ...
let me quote from california's sunshine law:
The
The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks WG to
consider the following document:
- 'Use of PE-PE GRE or IP in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs '
draft-ietf-l3vpn-gre-ip-2547-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition '
draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are David Kessens and Bert Wijnen.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Network Address Translators (NAT) '
draft-ietf-nat-natmib-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is
