On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:20:37 -0800 (PST), mharrima101 (sent by
Nabble.com) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
mharrima Is the behavior of the HP switch legal under UPD? It seems
mharrima to me as though this should not be allowed.
Protocols and implementations should generally respond using the
address
John Merrells wrote:
Name of the BOF
I dont see a preliminary discussion list on this BOF. That's IMHO is
customary.
I'm wondering what is the relationship of this proposed work to SAML or
the work of Liberty Alliance.
http://www.projectliberty.org/
I was frankly astounded that there
-Original Message-
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:39 AM
To: John Merrells
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Ted Hardie; Hollenbeck, Scott; Lisa Dusseault
Subject: Re: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX)
John Merrells
Harald,
Indeed, the IAB response concludes that the IESG has not
given sufficient justification for its decision in
Mr. Morfin's appeal, and that decision has been annulled.
The IAB's role here is one of review (in the appeal), not
directing the actions of IETF process.
If you require
Finding out what BOFs are being plotted is not very easy AFAIK. In the
case below there doesn't appear to have been any widespread public
announcement of the start of the mailing list and I suspect that is the
case for many others.
Obviously an announcement of intent to the IETF list or the
Elwyn Davies wrote:
Finding out what BOFs are being plotted is not very easy AFAIK. In the
case below there doesn't appear to have been any widespread public
announcement of the start of the mailing list and I suspect that is the
case for many others.
Obviously an announcement of intent to
I am not sure Dave's list is a complete list of stuff to remember, but it's
definitely a list of stuff to remember.
I'm not quite sure where the discussion forum for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-successful-bof-01.txt is,
but I really like the collection of stuff to
Wes Hardaker wrote:
Protocols and implementations should generally respond using the
address to which the request packet was sent. That being said, there
are sometimes protocol reasons not to do this and sometimes
implementations don't necessarily handle things properly internally.
But, I
As the editor of SAML 1.0 and someone who will be a panelist on the
Liberty panel at RSA next week the answer is DIX is solving a very
different part of the same problem space.
The principle point of SAML was to devise an open standard that allowed
an ERP application to hook into the enterprise
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4353
Title: A Framework for Conferencing with
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Author: J. Rosenberg
Status: Informational
Date:
10 matches
Mail list logo
