This is a great idea. Good to hear that its already on the works.
Information distribution and (I'm almost afraid to say this) marketing
are important. And lets not forget other mediums either, e.g.,
if you are a chair of WG make sure that the industry forums, other
SDOs etc that depend on your
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 01:57 +0200, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
For example I am unable to understand when last calls are called, what are
the current last calls, what is the URL of the Draft people discuss and
never give the URL, etc.
URL's are volatile, draft versions are too.
Check:
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment recommending
that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather
than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4. It would be
inappropriate to make a decision based on one comment so I am
soliciting comments on this
The argument in favor of publishing this document at proposed is that
the existing arcfour cipher is part of a standard and that many other
IETF protocols use rc4 in standards track documents.
previous mistakes are not valid justifications for new mistakes.
previous accidents are not valid
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment recommending
that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather
than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4. It would be
inappropriate to make a decision based on one
Keith == Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu writes:
The argument in favor of publishing this document at proposed
is that the existing arcfour cipher is part of a standard and
that many other IETF protocols use rc4 in standards track
documents.
Keith previous mistakes are not
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Hartman writes:
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment recommending
that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather
than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4. It would be
inappropriate to make a decision based
My personal opinion is that if there is a protocol that has been widely
deployed but which for whatever reason the IETF does not want to
encourage its adoption, the RFC should be published immediately as
HISTORIC.
Jeffrey Altman
Sam Hartman wrote:
Hi. I believe the following request is of
Keith previous mistakes are not valid justifications for new
Keith mistakes. previous accidents are not valid justifications
Keith for deliberately weakening new products.
So, that's certainly true. but I can see two points.
1) There is an existing somewhat broken rc4 cipher
Steven == Steven M Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steven --- Forwarded Message
Steven In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Hartman
Steven writes:
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment
recommending that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Hartman writes:
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment recommending
that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather
than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4.
The Resource Allocation Protocol WG (rap) in the Operations and Management
Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Bert Wijnen and David Kessens.
The mailing list will remain active.
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Implementer-friendly Specification of Message and MIME-Part Header Fields
and Field Components '
draft-lilly-field-specification-04.txt as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4074
Title: Common Misbehavior Against DNS Queries for IPv6
Addresses
Author(s): Y. Morishita, T. Jinmei
Status: Informational
Date: May 2005
14 matches
Mail list logo
