I am please to announce that the IAOC, through the Internet Society, has
contracted with VeriLAN Event Services of Portland Oregon
(www.verilan.com) to provide NOC services for IETF 68 in Prague.
VeriLAN has provided similar services for the IEEE 802, WiMAX Forum,
NPF, Intel and others, and
Hi.
I will get to substance in a separate note, and hope others will
also. In the interim, two procedural remarks...
(1) This document and draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt
describe two pieces of the how a document that does not
originate in a WG may be reviewed and published space. Each
Sam,
Denis == Denis Pinkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Denis Sam,
Russ == Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Denis: I do not consider these to be new comments. You made
Russ them during WG Last Call, and there was considerable
Russ discussion on the S/MIME WG mail
The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call
period
was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area
Director,
but in this case he cannot play this role).
So it is one against one and Sam is now the single Security Area Director
Hi, I have a little question about style in one place in the McWalter draft;
I suggest you replace This in Section 3, paragraph 3; line 2, with 'the
language tag defined here,' 'the language tag defined by MIB,' or something
similar:
In theory, BCP 47 language tags are of
Hi, the document looks o.k. but this is not my area of expertise
One question (probably a stupid one, but here goes),
What does This language tag refer to? in section 3, Definitions ??:
In theory, BCP 47 language tags are of unlimited length.
This language tag is of
Steven == Steven M Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steven On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:14:35 -0800
Steven Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to understand better why ... no automated key
management is specified.
Steven Do they cite any of
Hi Mike,
as the review says, they are just nits. If you disagree with them, feel
free to ignore them (as long as your AD is also OK with that, of course).
Cheers,
Gonzalo
C. M. Heard wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team
Doug Ewell scripsit:
Since tags of 1 character are never well-formed, I suggest that the
definition:
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..60))
be amended to exclude the 1-character case. I assume that a zero-length
tag, while also not defined in RFC 4646, was included in the I-D to
Hi, Jerry,
This is easier than it should be... slicing down through the stuff we
already worked out (if I deleted it, I agree with your plan)...
option is the same for both IPCP and IPV6CP. This configuration
option MUST be included for ECRTP, CRTP and IPHC PW types and MUST
NOT be
Hi Spencer,
Thanks a lot for the quick reply. Please see below.
-Original Message-
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:52 AM
To: ASH, GERALD R (JERRY), ATTLABS
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; General Area Review Team;
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
Mark == Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Similarly if syslogd is using a reliable transport
to talk to another syslogd. That too can block which
will eventualy lead to blockages to applications /
memory exhaustion.
*That* is a different beast, not
RFC 3986 contains a (brief) description of security considerations
for agents that produce or receive and interpret URIs. I would expect
this document to at the very least reference those security considerations
more explicitly, and at best to analyze how they apply in particular
to URIs used
Hi,
Right - ASN.1 doesn't allow discontinuous integer ranges.
The DESCRIPTION clause of this textual convention could
disallow the length of '1', but it's not important to do,
I think.
With respect to max length of 60, the public MIBs that
I'm aware of often use 63 octets and the rest use a
Hi, Jerry,
Definitely headed the right direction. Do the right thing - and thanks.
Spencer
From: ASH, GERALD R (JERRY), ATTLABS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Spencer,
Thanks a lot for the quick reply. Please see below.
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last
Hi Spencer,
Many thanks for your thorough and constructive review of the draft.
Please see responses to your comments below, and please let us know of
any further comments or suggestions.
Thanks,
Regards,
Jerry
-Original Message-
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam,
Russ == Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Denis: I do not consider these to be new comments. You made
Russ them during WG Last Call, and there was considerable
Russ discussion on the S/MIME WG mail list. In the end, you were
Russ unable to gain any support for
On 2/14/07, The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/plain Media Type '
draft-wilde-text-fragment-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
Editorial point:
Section 2.2.1
Hi -
From: McDonald, Ira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Feb 11, 2007 4:15 AM
To: 'John Cowan' [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], LTRU Working Group [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib (Language Ta
g MIB)
Registration Cutoff Dates:
March 9, Friday - Early-Bird registration and payment cut-off at 12:00
noon ET (17:00 UTC/GMT)
March 17, Saturday - Final Pre-Registration and Pre-Payment cut-off at
17:00 ET (21:00 UTC/GMT)
You can register for the IETF meeting and social event at:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/plain Media Type '
draft-wilde-text-fragment-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
21 matches
Mail list logo
