Yaakov Stein wrote:
Clarifying that "publicly known" means "well defined and publicly
available", I would answer no...
and if it is restricted to mean
"open description so that you could write your own editor to read and
write this format" ?
...without having to sign a contract to the
1) Overall: Being able to reauthenticate the client (either
periodically or by some other trigger) is a common requirement in
remote access deployments. It's a good idea to have one documented
way to do this, instead of each vendor inventing its own proprietary
payloads. Thus, I think this documen
> "william(at)elan" == william(at)elan net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
william(at)elan> And yes in case you don't know BoF chairs and AD
william(at)elan> did deny request to present alternatives to DKIM
william(at)elan> when it was still called MASS BoF.
Russ did state an explicit
> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> John K., et al, Feliz año nuevo; Selamat tahun baru.
>> I do believe that it is not desirable to create standards that
>> would give a gift of either technology or justification to
>> those who would use them to fragm
I support the new charter and thank those who spent the time
discussing it and walking through alternatives.
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Comments inline
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 1) Overall: Being able to reauthenticate the client (either
> periodically or by some other trigger) is a common requirement in
> remote access deployments. It's
> Roughly we need to consider how DKIM is used, not just define a
> technology. We need to talk about bad uses of DKIM as soon as we
> are aware that they are sufficinetly likely that they are worth
> considering.
Here's a concrete suggestion: it is clear that the bad uses of DKIM
people have men
> "John" == John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Roughly we need to consider how DKIM is used, not just define a
>> technology. We need to talk about bad uses of DKIM as soon as
>> we are aware that they are sufficinetly likely that they are
>> worth considering.
Jo
> John> Here's a concrete suggestion: it is clear that the bad uses
> John> of DKIM people have mentioned are a subset of the bad uses
> John> of STARTTLS.
>
> That's not clear to me.
> I'd never really considered the question though so it may well be true.
If walled gardens are the pr
> "John" == John R Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> The CAs that people use in web SSL are overwhelmingly signed
John> by Verisign or its subsidiaries like Thawte. Geotrust is a
John> distant second.
John> I honestly don't know what signers people use for STARTTLS
> OK. If this is just an assumption and not backed by evidence, I would
> suspect that outside of the web you see a lot less use of the big CAs.
Probably true. And since DKIM has no provision for authorities at all, it
definitely doesn't use them.
So remind me, what is the problem with DKIM tha
--On onsdag, januar 04, 2006 09:54:56 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John> And the TLS world is dominated by a single signer whose
John> signing policies are opaque.
Really? Are you sure the TLS world is not dominated by users clicking
OK trust this cert for anything
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> OK. If this is just an assumption and not backed by evidence, I would
> suspect that outside of the web you see a lot less use of the big CAs.
Web-style TLS is used for authenticating the server in other protocols
too, such as IMAP, submission-mode SMTP,
> "Clint" == Clint Chaplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Clint> Has an email list been set up for this effort yet?
Clint> On 12/22/05, Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, pre-wg this is being discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However the WG will get its own mailing list if approv
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi -
In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
section 3 says:
| Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
| declaring cons
John, perhaps the logos on the IETF website are an issue on which we
can agree to let the IAOC decide reasonable policy and apply it. It
seems like a long discussion here does not advance our goals.
-
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://w
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Yaakov Stein wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Clarifying that "publicly known" means "well defined and publicly
> > available", I would answer no...
> >
> > and if it is restricted to mean
> > "open description so that you could write your own editor to read and
>
"John R Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> OK. If this is just an assumption and not backed by evidence, I would
>> suspect that outside of the web you see a lot less use of the big CAs.
This is my impression as well. And a fair amount of the reason here
is UI: the browsers are set up to che
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Speaking for myself, I agree. The whole point of rough consensus is to
leave scope for some nay-sayers, but it's for the WG Chairs (if relevant)
and the IESG to judge whether the number of objections is significant.
That is what were asking for in this case.
Stewart
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 02:59:34PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> (2) Development of a converter between the MS-XML output
> of Word Pro 2003 and the XML input of RFC 2629bis so
> that xml2rfc and its friends could take responsibility
> for final formatting. Note that, if t
> Word is of course out of the question since it is proprietary,
> undocumented, and unstable. I hope we have consensus on that.
I hope so too!
I initially thought the proposal to use M$ Word as an official
format was a joke. The IETF has a tradition of not caring how
our documents are prepared,
Brian,
Yours is sort of a general reply to a question which has
very specific relevance in this case.
Yes, the current process allows for getting around a few
nay-sayers.
However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a process
> I do believe that, if you want to do initial document
> preparation in Word, you should be able to do that. As others
> have suggested, no one I know of is really interested in
> standardizing on or requiring a particular editor. But, to do
> so, you need to be able to produce an editable forma
Ted,
If that happens, don't you think that we would be
obliged to object to their claims?
IMO, such claims would be easily defeated on the
same basis as most "look & feel" claims have been beaten
in the past. In fact, I am not aware of issues with any
sort of rights assertion re
> I don't see why the editor you use needs to be open-standard.
> As far as I know the IETF is attempting to standardize IP-related
> communications protocols, not editors.
Anyone should be able to contribute to the IETF, not just those
who work for big companies who have been fooled into using th
Yaakov,
Yes, that would be most of what I meant by "publicly
available." Since we're trying to be very precise, I also
include the notion of "readily available documentation" in
the broader concept to "publicly available" where "readily"
may be implied in your use of "open" - and essent
E> AS I understand it the concern is that people who don't use DKIM
will eventually not be able to send e-mail to people who are using
it. I'm not sure that this is something that people should be concerned
about, indeed, the logic of this kind of system is that if it succeeds
that's exactly what
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:45:40PM -0500, Gray, Eric wrote:
> Ted,
>
> If that happens, don't you think that we would be
> obliged to object to their claims?
>
> IMO, such claims would be easily defeated on the
> same basis as most "look & feel" claims have been beaten
> in the past.
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> E> AS I understand it the concern is that people who don't use DKIM
>> will eventually not be able to send e-mail to people who are using
>> it. I'm not sure that this is something that people should be concerned
>> about, indeed, the logic of this kind o
On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
E> AS I understand it the concern is that people who don't use DKIM
will eventually not be able to send e-mail to people who are using
it. I'm not sure that this is something that people should be
concerned about, indeed, the logic of this kin
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The basic value proposition of any sender authentication system as an
>> input to filtering is that lets you increase the sensitivity of the
>> filters, while still obtaining an acceptable overall false positive
>> rate.
>
> Nicely said. (And, by the way
Eric,
No, I don't have any empirical evidence for asserting that it's
certain or likely to occur. But in truth nobody has much empirical
evidence for anything here, so we're reduced to theorizing.
Serious theorizing works carefully from an empirical base, with a clear logic
sequence. This n
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[]
Sigh. Can I suggest that a little exponential backoff on
all parts may be appropriate? As one of the authors of the
dkim draft, this has been an extremely painful thread to
watch.
Mike
___
Ietf mailing
I've been following this thread and I'm a bit surprised that no one has
suggested Open Document Format:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/faq.php
Although it's still pretty new, it is fully documented, useable by editors
available on multiple platforms, and appears to be free of any s
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 06:50:02PM +0100,
Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> If you do not know how to do that with Word, there is help to get.
Yes, in RFC 3285.
3285 Using Microsoft Word to create Internet Drafts and RFCs. M.
Gahrns,
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:16:18PM -0500,
Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> I've been following this thread and I'm a bit surprised that no one
> has suggested Open Document Format:
If we use a XML format, why the very large and complexe (700 pages)
Brian,
Yours is sort of a general reply to a question which has
very specific relevance in this case.
Yes, the current process allows for getting around a few
nay-sayers.
However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people w
> if something like DKIM is successful, I would expect an equilibrium
> where filters are set extremely high and nearly all good senders
> authenticate their messages because otherwise they stand an
> unacceptably high chance of having them rejected.
That seems plausible at some point, maybe five
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
If we use a XML format, why the very large and complexe (700 pages)
OpenDocument and not "our" RFC 2629?
Indeed. Although, at some point of time we'll have also to realize that
there most people when they say "RFC2629" they really mean RFC2629bis.
So, sooner or late
Title: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"
> However, the text objected to in this
case argues thatthis process should be extended by a process of counting
thepeople who don't publicly participate in the discussion, eitherway,
as having tacitly given their approval to whateve
Title: Re: Alternative formats for IDs
> If you do not know how to do that with Word, there is help to
get.Yes, in RFC 3285.3285 Using Microsoft Word to create
Internet Drafts and RFCs. M. Gahrns, T. Hain. May
2002. (Format: TXT=34556 bytes) (Status:
INFORMATIONAL)[YJS] Yes of cou
Title: RE: Alternative formats for IDs
John
Thanks for the
thorough summary
of the cons about using Word.
I agree with much of what you say,
and am fully aware that Word is not the ideal
tool.
However, I haven't had the same harrowing
experiences
that I have seen described here on th
Title: Re: Alternative formats for IDs
Oh, one more thing. The most widely-used
archival form in use at librariesI've visited has been written or printed
words on paper. This form hasmuch going for it -- it can represent any
character set humans have everused, can contain any diagram, an
Yaakov Stein wrote:
> Actually, cuneiform on clay tablets and hieroglyphics on
> marble stelai seem to be better than paper if you really
> want your message to last a long time.
Libraries have books that are several hundred years old,
and they have problems with some only sixty years old books
d
44 matches
Mail list logo
