http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2005/07/p62.php
While its chief aim seems to be at organizations that the IETF loves to
claim it's different from, we should try to not become what we denigrate as
we prepare to congregate for our Paris togetherness week.
Harald
--On fredag, juli 15, 2005 13:11:09 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday, July 15, 2005 11:48:28 AM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agree, for the most part. Fixed port numbers do have
--On torsdag, juli 14, 2005 21:33:05 -0400 Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Directed towards the IESG:
Recording meetings, and publishing those recordings, may be a hassle,
but it answers all questions about the integrity of the decision-making
process. There may still be questions
Francois,
In 1999 you asked my predecessor's predecessor:
I wonder if we should not have a new working group within the IETF that
would issue informational RFC's on the topics of equal access
using Internet Protocol technologies.
Well, I'm quite sure the answer is no. That is a business
Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 05:27:45PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
My expectation is that we'll stick to the pattern of two N American
meetings plus one in another region - but meeting planning is an art,
not a science.
I like the deterministic formula based on
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I'm saying that one source system can generate more than 64K
IMAP4 sessions. These are systems running various sorts of
proxies, so they are in effect hosting many clients at once.
True, but if we are running IPv6 then surely the solution to this
problem would be
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
I'm working on other sort orders
Neither REF nor IANA in the state column before the date
could be very interesting. Or some statistics, but I guess
you already have that elsewhere.
Actually I disagree. It is quite useful to be able to
--On torsdag, juli 14, 2005 21:33:05 -0400 Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Directed towards the IESG:
Recording meetings, and publishing those recordings, may be a hassle,
but it answers all questions about the integrity of the decision-making
process. There may still be
John,
The short answer is Yes - identifying meeting locations
and times 18 to 24 months out is a plausible target.
Site ID is less a problem than Sponsor commitment, but the
answer remains Yes.
Ray
Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle down
over time, we can reasonably expect
warning... implementing control by denying information (such
as not telling
the bad guy which port the secured-by-obscurity process is
ACTUALLY running
on) is not terribly good security. It is certainly reasonable
control over
people who want to be controlled (management), but not
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In 1999 you asked my predecessor's predecessor:
I wonder if we should not have a new working group within the IETF that
would issue informational RFC's on the topics of equal access
using Internet Protocol technologies.
Well, I'm quite sure the
Since the CMTS is not the originating node it can not modify the flow label
field, so do not look there. This sounds exactly like the case that the
routing header was created for, but for some reason people consistently
refuse to look there ...
I agree there needs to be some thought about a
The IESG has received a request from the dnsext WG to consider the following
document:
- 'Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types '
RFC 3597 as a Draft Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any
13 matches
Mail list logo
