Francois Menard wrote:
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.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Anyone with corporate board experience has been there as
> well. Or school board experience. Or, for that matter,
> corridor conversations at IETF meetings. There's certainly no
> shortage of examples.
I think that most people understan
Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle down over
time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting times and
locations known 18 months to two years out" status that has been
the target for some years? Or, to put it differently, without
any unreasonable expectations about ho
--On tirsdag, juli 19, 2005 07:09:16 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As noted in the current thread, early site selection permits attendee
budgeting. From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site
terms and operational efficiencies when a previous site is re-used.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:48:28 -0700
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are certain limitations to the SRV prefix scheme but these are
> entirely fixable. All we actually need is one new RR to allow one
> level of indirection to be introduced. With that in place it is
> possi
> > As noted in the current thread, early site selection permits attendee
> > budgeting. From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site
> > terms and operational efficiencies when a previous site is re-used.
> > Minneapolis has been a useful demonstration of this latter point, I t
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:23 -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:48:28 -0700
> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are certain limitations to the SRV prefix scheme but these are
> > entirely fixable. All we actually need is one new RR to allow one
> > lev
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > --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,
> > > bu
I have to say that every time we went back to Minneapolis, they got
friendlier. It also made our job easier because they knew what we needed,
and it wasn't a shock to them. Having extra tables in the common areas,
allowing us to wire up the bar, asking them to turn off their wireless,
and advance
On 19-jul-2005, at 16:19, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site
terms and operational efficiencies when a previous site is re-used.
Minneapolis has been a useful demonstration of this latter point,
I think.
Since nobody but Foretec has see
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of John Kristoff
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:48:28 -0700
> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are certain limitations to the SRV prefix scheme but
> these are
> > entirely fixable. All we actually need is on
There is a new I-D trying to fix what we require for the meetings Is
still preliminary and I will like to have an informal meeting with the
interested people which may have some expertise on this topic in Paris. So
if you're interested let me know !
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-p
Filtering can always be done, that is the right of the network
administrator doing the filtering. That some users won't like it is
indeed an issue, but that is political and not technical.
Thinking of this as a "right" is the wrong way to think about it. A
more relevant question is whether t
> Host and application security are not the job of the network.
They are the job of the network interfaces. The gateway between a
network and the internetwork should be closely controlled and guarded.
Nobody is really proposing embedding security into the Internet backbone
(at least not yet). Bu
> Date: 2005-07-14 03:30
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What's the Parking Area? It's the list of all drafts that have been
> approved by the IESG but are not yet published as RFCs.
>
> You can find the test version at
>
> http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/parking
[...]
> Date: 2
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:44:57 -0700
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm concerned this may usher in DNS SRV message filtering in
> > addition to protocol port filtering.
>
> Why?
>
> My post pointed out that use of SRV is essentially neutral with
> respect to protocol fil
On 19-jul-2005, at 23:35, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Host and application security are not the job of the network.
They are the job of the network interfaces. The gateway between a
network and the internetwork should be closely controlled and guarded.
You may want to read up on the end-to
At 2:35 PM -0700 7/19/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Host and application security are not the job of the network.
They are the job of the network interfaces. The gateway between a
network and the internetwork should be closely controlled and guarded.
Nobody is really proposing embedding s
Bruce Lilly writes:
>It would be nice to have something analogous to the I-D tracker
>for the RFC-Editor process, recording process state transitions
>and their dates.
The parking area isn't really meant to be an analysis of the RFC Editor's
queue, just a statement about what the IETF has approve
> > Most people think that carriers
> >should not be allowing people to inject bogons.
> >
> >Modern security architectures do not rely exclusively on application
> >security. If you want to connect up to a state of the art corporate
> >network the machine has to authenticate.
>
> the notion t
> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeffrey> On Thursday, July 14, 2005 08:50:16 PM -0700
Jeffrey> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Anyone want to bet on Minneapolis - Its March after all.
Jeffrey> Sounds good to me.
Me too.
___
While we are on the subject of SRV, port numbers etc:
Why not define SRV prefixes for POP3, IMAP4 and SUBMIT so that email
applications can auto-configure from the email address alone.
I recognize that this would be much more satisfactory with better DNS
security. But even without DNSSEC it would
How about Daytona Beach?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jeffrey> On Thursday, July 14, 2005 08:50:16 PM -0700
> Jeffrey> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Anyone want to bet on Minneapolis - Its March after
Bill Fenner wrote:
> http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/analyze-rfcq.txt is updated
> daily and has the state changes that I've observed.
That's very interesting. Apparently you have the raw data to
add a "last time it left IANA or REF state" timestamp to the
"parking area" table.
> It also break
24 matches
Mail list logo
