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 received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to consider
>the following document:
>
>- 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
>as a Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send any
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 un
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.
De
> "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
>> docume
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 con
--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-
-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
> "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
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 :
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 c
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;
(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 irre
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 not
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 Language
> -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
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 so
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.
18 matches
Mail list logo
