on 2005-09-15 05:29 Frank Ellermann said the following:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
>> verify that I got it right
>
> Of course you did, but my stupid browser still doesn't get it,
> sigh... embarassing, let's say "IOU ten legacy browser tests"
> whenever you need them. Is there any better pl
unsubscriber
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Pekka,
on 2005-09-15 07:00 Pekka Savola said the following:
[...]
> A suggestion: it might be a good idea to include a changelog of
> user-visible changes somewhere. That way, the folks might discover
> the fancy new features more easily..
Yes - it's only a few days away... The gray versi
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
There will continue to be incremental additions and refinements to
the tools which are already on the site, so suggestions and
contributions are very welcome. We're also working on new stuff
which we hope you'll like :-)
A suggestion: it might be a
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> verify that I got it right
Of course you did, but my stupid browser still doesn't get it,
sigh... embarassing, let's say "IOU ten legacy browser tests"
whenever you need them. Is there any better place than this
list for cases of "user hallucinates technical problem wi
At 5:32 PM -0700 9/14/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
Such a third party would act as a repository for update information
provided by
vendors. Applications would then "call home" to one of these repositories
rather than directly to the vendor. Various anonymyzing tricks could be
empl
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, The IESG wrote:
> A modified charter has been submitted for the Integrated
> Security Model for SNMP (isms) working group in the Security
> Area of the IETF.
...
> In order to leverage the authentication information already
> accessible at managed devices, the new security model
Ned Freed wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
> If I were to object to Eliot's proposal (I don't - in fact I strongly
> support
> it), it would be on the grounds that the IETF should be taking a long
> hard look
> at the issues surrounding call home in general, not just in the special
> case of
> SNMP.
I
Hi Frank,
on 2005-09-15 01:08 Frank Ellermann said the following:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
>> suggestions and contributions are very welcome
>
> Minor nit, the output is still "transitional" using ,
> table layout, etc. That's fine from my POV with a "legacy"
> browser. But the "right colum
Excellent! Many thanks for this great tool. It is already in my firefox
toolbar :-).
One curious side effect might be that everyone will now know if other WGs
set out to make modifications to mine is> IPsec, and might make life in the IETF more exciting, if it not
already exciting enough :-)
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> suggestions and contributions are very welcome
Minor nit, the output is still "transitional" using ,
table layout, etc. That's fine from my POV with a "legacy"
browser. But the "right column" is often much shorter than
the "left column" (= list of WGs). And the defaul
Ned Freed wrote:
> If I were to object to Eliot's proposal (I don't - in fact I strongly
> support
> it), it would be on the grounds that the IETF should be taking a long
> hard look
> at the issues surrounding call home in general, not just in the special
> case of
> SNMP.
I'll bite: what coul
I've fixed the code, and both sites should be updated within an hour.
... and this is the OTHER reason people should be looking at the IETF tools
website - if you have feedback on what the tools do and how they can be
improved, updates usually happen really quickly :-)
Spencer
__
Hi Lakshminath,
on 2005-09-14 22:48 Lakshminath Dondeti said the following:
> This is a great tool and I am (was) thinking that this would help identify
> contributions to WG1 that may be related to WG2 by listing both the names
> in the title.
>
> For instance, the MSEC WG has some IPSEC relat
on 2005-09-14 22:20 Thomas Narten said the following:
> As Spencer says, if you haven't looked recently, you really should.
>
> Let me just give a big Thanks to Henrik and the tools team for the
> work that has gone into tools.ietf.org. It is an incredibly useful
> resource.
>
> That is the fir
On 13-sep-2005, at 14:32, Pekka Nikander wrote:
So, as I state in my little web page, I think we really should work
hard to create a new waist for the architecture. I, of course,
have my own theory where the new waist should be and how it should
be implemented,
Well, don't be shy: where
This is a great tool and I am (was) thinking that this would help identify
contributions to WG1 that may be related to WG2 by listing both the names
in the title.
For instance, the MSEC WG has some IPSEC related documents. For example,
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/msec/draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-signa
Ned Freed wrote:
If I were to object to Eliot's proposal (I don't - in fact I strongly
support
it), it would be on the grounds that the IETF should be taking a long
hard look
at the issues surrounding call home in general, not just in the special
case of
SNMP.
I'll bite: what could the IETF
As Spencer says, if you haven't looked recently, you really should.
Let me just give a big Thanks to Henrik and the tools team for the
work that has gone into tools.ietf.org. It is an incredibly useful
resource.
That is the first place I go when I want to see what the status of
something is in a
On 14:32 13/09/2005, Pekka Nikander said:
OTOH, maybe I am just a dreamer and totally off the ground here?
No, you are not!
However the problem with a "vision" is to know where the boarder is
between dreams and real future. This is why I prefer a more prosaïc
"model" which gives a simple im
Fred Baker posted the following note to v6ops, and other versions may be
floating around other mailing lists, but I wanted to follow up to a wider
distribution.
- The IETF tools site IS continuing to add really cool functionality (as
detailed by Bert/Fred below), but I haven't seen anything br
Eliot> Wes received the obvious feedback that operators find SNMP
Eliot> unusable with the USM model because they cannot integrate it
Eliot> with their existing security infrastructures and there is no
Eliot> denying that this is a real problem. But this is NOT the only
Eliot> problem operators f
22 matches
Mail list logo
