On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I've already indicated this in previous occasions, but may be not in ppml
...
We are proceeding in parallel, with the ID and the PDP at the same time.
Nothing in the PDP precludes doing so.
The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define
On 2007-05-11 16:14, Fred Baker wrote:
...
One technical question I would ask. What does a Central Authority and
IANA Assignment have to do with a Local address of any type? It
seems in context that the major issue is an address prefix that is not
advertised to neighboring ISPs and can be
Thus spake Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fred, the point is that ULAs should be unambiguous, so that if they
happen to meet (e.g. via a VPN, or following a merge of two previously
separate networks) there is no collision. Currently ULAs include
a pseudo-random prefix, which leaves open a
Thus spake Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ULA Central does not solve any problems that the existing tools
already solve, and it creates new problems of its own.
That should be don't already solve.
S
Stephen Sprunk Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a
On 2007-05-14 16:08, Shane Kerr wrote:
Brian,
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global
policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the
Brian,
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global
policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the
case. IANA can be instructed the same by
The intended status of the draft itself is Informational rather than Historic,
surely?
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic '
draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-01.txt as a
The IESG reviewed http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-
rfc4234bis-00.txt for publication as Internet Standard and would
like to know if there is consensus to recommend against the use of
LWSP in future specifications, as it has caused problems recently in
DKIM and could
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
The IESG reviewed
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-rfc4234bis-00.txt
for publication as Internet Standard and would like to know if there is
consensus to recommend against the use of LWSP in future specifications,
as it has caused problems recently in
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
The IESG reviewed
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-rfc4234bis-00.txt for
publication as Internet Standard and would like to know if there is
consensus to recommend against the use of LWSP in future specifications,
Lisa,
Process:
1 This issue was
On May 14, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
The IESG reviewed http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
crocker-rfc4234bis-00.txt for publication as Internet Standard
and would like to know if there is consensus to recommend against
the use of LWSP in future
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
I share your concerns about removing rules that are already in use --
that would generally be a bad thing. However I'm interested in the
consensus around whether a warning or a deprecation statement would be a
good thing.
LWSP has a valid meaning and use, and its being
The IESG has received a request from the RADIUS EXTensions WG (radext)
to consider the following document:
- 'Common RADIUS Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes '
draft-ietf-radext-fixes-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Leasequery '
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-leasequery-00.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'Using the Host Identity Protocol with Legacy Applications '
draft-ietf-hip-applications-01.txt as an Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions '
draft-ietf-hip-dns-09.txt as an Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Relay Agent Echo Request Option '
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IMAP ANNOTATE Extension '
draft-ietf-imapext-annotate-16.txt as an Experimental RFC
This document is the product of the Internet Message Access Protocol
Extension Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Chris Newman.
18 matches
Mail list logo
