On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:35:23PM -0400,
Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
I believe Frank's concern is that he wants the ability to refuse
services to sites who have not published accurate contact
information through whois.
Very bad idea, IMHO. But
I would like to understand why
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt
claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition,
conflicting with current practices and development projects under way?
I support it as a transition standard track RFC needed by
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:03 AM
To: iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
I would like to understand why
On 13:24 24/08/2005, Scott Hollenbeck said:
-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:03 AM
To: iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
I would like to understand why
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt
claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition,
conflicting with current practices and development projects under way?
I've read this draft and see
(somewhat offtrack...)
--On 24. august 2005 10:27 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The vast majority of the ccTLD in the world have no whois server
(check the whois server field in the IANA whois) and often not
publication of contact information at all. But this is
On Wed, August 24, 2005 9:02 am, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin said:
On 13:24 24/08/2005, Scott Hollenbeck said:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:03 AM
To: iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
voluntary publication of information has an extremely
flexible and powerfull tool at its disposition. It is
named the web.
Sure, and reporting trouble also has some powerful tools,
send a mail to postmaster@ or abuse@ or similar addresses.
The whois info is for
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I believe Frank's concern is that he wants the ability to
refuse services to sites who have not published accurate
contact information through whois.
Very bad idea, IMHO. But it's true that, if you refuse email
from .com domains, you have much less spam :-)
You
iesg == The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
iesg This last call is being reissued because this document
iesg contains a normative reference to an informational RFC:
iesg RFC 2144 The CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm. C. Adams. May
iesg 1997.
iesg It is customary to include
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
IESG Chair Brian Carpenter,
as per the Internet Standards Process, section 6.5, and on behalf of the
SPF project, I am filing a formal appeal on the IESG's approval on
2005-06-29[1] to publish the draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 I-D[3] as an
Experimental
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 17:24 -0400 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
iesg == The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
iesg This last call is being reissued because this
document iesg contains a normative reference to an
informational RFC:
iesg RFC 2144 The CAST-128
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 19:14, John C Klensin wrote:
Even if one believes that it is desirable, 3967 already weakens
traditional norms for documents on the IETF standards track. A
suggestion that further weakening is needed definitely calls for
some discussion, at least IMO.
There is
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John --On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 17:24 -0400 Sam Hartman
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
iesg == The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
iesg This last call is being reissued because this
document iesg contains a normative
On 18:25 24/08/2005, Scott Hollenbeck said:
The people on these lists are
not necessarily familiar with the discussion that took place on the LTRU
working group mailing list. I believe it is necessary to help those readers
understand your questions and comments by putting them in context.
At 17:34 24/08/2005, David Hopwood wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
I would like to understand why
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt
claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition,
conflicting with current practices and development projects
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to consider
the following document:
- 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-42.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
In particular, there is a long-established tradition of specifying
cryptographic algorithms as Informational documents, and referring to
them from standards-track documents.
I think there needs to be separation of two different kinds of
documents,
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP with MPLS '
draft-ietf-mpls-bgp-mpls-restart-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Alex Zinin and Bill
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA-224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384,
and HMAC-SHA-512 '
draft-nystrom-smime-hmac-sha-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working
Standard Reply-to: iesg@ietf.org
CC: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org
The IESG has received a request from the Secure Shell WG to consider the
following document:
- 'SSH Transport Layer Encryption Modes '
draft-ietf-secsh-newmodes-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
This last call is being reissued because
21 matches
Mail list logo
