Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I have to agree that e2e cannot create network level QoS that isn't
available -
if the best path available can't offer the desired QoS, no end system
magic can
achieve that QoS. But it can at least make the best use of the QoS
available,
e.g. by reducing a
--On fredag, juli 22, 2005 00:27:25 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam, I would think that the purpose of a Last Call as part of
IESG review would primarily be not to evaluate success or
failure, but to be sure that the IESG has an opportunity to
hear, from the community,
IETF-ers,
What is the latest state-of-the-art thinking at the IETF about a
distributed multiple-root systems for name discovery based on end-to-end
peer-to-peer PKI-based trust discovery and trust chain management
properties/capabilities exchange (I can sign you, you can sign me, I can
do
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
We were faced with this question some time ago, and the result was the
creation of the IETF Non-WG mailing lists page,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi
The theory being that if something is listed there, the IETF definitely
considers it an IETF list; if it is not listed,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:31:48AM -0400,
Francois Menard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
However, there is more generality to my question ... I need a quick
rundown of the latest thinking (RFCs, ID's, IESG IAB directives, IRTF
experiments) regarding:
1)
You have of course read RFC 2826, IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS
Root?
Of course, this is specifically about the DNS, and doesn't answer your
question as it pertains to non-DNS systems
--On fredag, juli 22, 2005 07:31:48 -0400 Francois Menard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, there is more generality to my question ... I need a quick
rundown of the latest thinking (RFCs, ID's, IESG IAB directives, IRTF
experiments) regarding:
1) distributed multiple roots
I would certainly be interested in any scientific and technical papers
about this issue. This is a
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:08:03AM -0400,
Francois Menard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
You, not everybody
v
I would for example not trust .travel from new.net if ICANN had assumed
control over .travel ... I should be able to pick this from a PKI-based
P2P
At 13:31 22/07/2005, Francois Menard wrote:
IETF-ers,
What is the latest state-of-the-art thinking at the IETF about a
distributed multiple-root systems for name discovery based on end-to-end
peer-to-peer PKI-based trust discovery and trust chain management
properties/capabilities exchange
Date: 2005-07-20 16:31
From: Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Jul 2005, at 18:26, Bruce Lilly wrote:
I recall making no statements about RTP or the way it conveys data
save for the fact that that is as irrelevant to defining a media type
as are details of TCP or UDP etc.
You
At 10:08 AM -0400 7/22/05, Francois Menard wrote:
I would for example not trust .travel from new.net if ICANN had
assumed control over .travel ... I should be able to pick this from
a PKI-based P2P trust chain, would I not?
Then you have created a new root, namely a combined one that you have
Hi Eliot,
--On July 21, 2005 9:23:16 PM +0200 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the daring, there is http://www.ofcourseimright.com/~lear/ietf63.ics.
I claim no competence in any of this. No responsibility if you miss
your meetings. No promises to update it. But it works for me.
Thus spake Stephen Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boy are you in for a shock when you try to connect to an ethernet with
802.1x.
I have yet to do so. I do have the facility on my Mac, but I've never had
to turn it on.
You need to get out more.
Authentication is being built into the NIC cards. At
Thanks for the file. Unfortunately it is not a valid iCalendar file
To fix this, just add the following line below the 'BEGIN:VCALENDAR' line:
VERSION:2.0
Done!
In addition, each VEVENT component needs to have a UID property with a
unique identifier in each one.
Done!
Also, I
Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
It's already happening. There is a large (and growing) number of corporate
networks where 802.1x is mandatory -- if you don't do it, you simply can't
connect. I've also run into a fair number that require registering MAC
addresses (default is to
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway, I hereby propose the IETF Corollary to Godwin's Law: whenever
any IETF thread migrates to the subject of spam, it's time to end the
thread.
Does this mean that you think the
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
A call for comments requires having something for the community to
comment on.
Will an internet draft will be
...
Does this mean that you think the IETF should disband the ASRG, drop all
current I-D's relating to spam, and quit working on spam issues?
What I think is that if you change the subject, you should change
the Subject:, so that people who might be interested in Sarcarm
and intimidation but
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:08:03AM -0400,
Francois Menard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
You, not everybody
v
I would for example not trust .travel from new.net if ICANN had assumed
control over .travel ... I should be able to pick
At 3:51 PM -0400 7/22/05, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
A call for comments requires having something for the
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Don't forget that
the uniqueness property of a domain name is used to guarantee uniqueness
in other, derived, namespaces,
How is it guaranteed? That is, who pays how much if the broken
uniqueness resulted in loss of, say, $1,000,000?
Without proper guarantee, based
On 22 Jul 2005, at 16:25, Bruce Lilly wrote:
...
To the extent that transport protocol overhead has been erroneously
included in what is purported to be a media format specification,
that is a problem with the registration and/or specification.
There is nothing in the MIME rules which
At 22:54 22/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I wouldn't change a word in RFC 2826.
The problem with RFC 2826 is that it links (for information) a unique
domain name resolution (what we want) with a unique authoritative root file
(we do not care it is unique, we want the one we use to be
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Masataka Ohta wrote:
PKI has nothing to do with E2E.
As CAs and DNS servers are intermediate systems, neither PKI nor
DNS are E2E.
As intermediate systems, they don't have any information on
ongoing transaction that they can't give any real guarantee.
Masataka-San, your
On 2005-07-22 18:51 Cyrus Daboo said the following:
[...]
BTW I think it might be worthwhile for the folks working on tools for IETF
processes to look into having an automatic iCalendar generator for IETF
agendas as a lot of people now have iCal capable clients that they could
use to
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4116
Title: IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations
Author(s): J. Abley, K. Lindqvist, E. Davies, B. Black,
V. Gill
Status: Informational
Date:
27 matches
Mail list logo
