On Mon, 14 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
Could cause problems in other places... The DKIM hiccup was the first
one I'd heard about.
By contrast, linear-white-space was defined in RFC733, in 1977, with
RFC822 retaining that definition. It is defined in those places as
essentially
Hi,
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:04:19PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
[..]
ICANN can end the MoU at any time, and find a new technical consultant.
The IETF can also end the MoU at any time. But the IETF doesn't have the
authority to appoint a new IANA operator.
[..]
The RIR's can do whatever
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
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
The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC. The RIRs
existed before ICANN. The relationship between the RIRs and ICANN is defined in
the ASO MoU, an agreement between ICANN on the one hand and the NRO on behalf
of the RIRs on the other. There is no mention in the ICANN
I had followed up to Tony's note privately with Tony/Lisa/Dave yesterday,
but perhaps I should have posted it here. No time like the present.
I agree that technical changes to a specification as it moves from Draft to
Full does not seem helpful. Although we have darned little experience
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
Paul Overell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
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
The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC.
The US DoC, through IANA functions, says, e.g., what IP Address blocks
each can allocate. That seems to qualify as 'much say'
Didn't say how much say, just said that whatever say it had for ARIN it was the
same as it had
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
2. The ABNF is a candidate for moving from Draft to Full. Will
removing a
rule (that is already in use?) or otherwise changing the semantics of
the
specification, at this point, still permit the document to advance? I
had the
impression that moving to Full was based
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Removing features that have proved to be a Bad Idea has always been
listed as one of the possible changes from Proposed to Draft - Draft to
Full happens so rarely that I would be hesitant to claim that there's
tradition for such changes there.
The question is the
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
The issue was initially raised by Frank
Hi, a short explanation, initially I hoped that 4234 can be
promoted to STD as is. I missed the (now listed) errata
in the pending errata mbox.
Some months later 4234bis-00 was posted, and if 4234 can't
be promoted as is, then
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
--On Tuesday, 15 May, 2007 12:03 -0700 Ned Freed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
So that is a total of at most 2 documented cases in 10-30 years.
And keep in mind that the issue is not that the rule does not work but that
it is very rarely mis-used.
Did you miss my post linking to a description of LWSP-related interop
problems in
Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
So that is a total of at most 2 documented cases in 10-30 years.
And keep in mind that the issue is not that the rule does not work but that
it is very rarely mis-used.
Did you miss my post linking to a description of LWSP-related
On May 15, 2007, at 10:16 AM, John Leslie wrote:
I did some research, and found the following mentions of LWSP:
rfc0733 obs-by rfc0822
rfc0822 defs LWSP-char = SPACE / HTAB obs-by rfc2822
rfc0987 refs rfc0822
rfc1138 refs rfc0822
rfc1148 refs rfc0822
rfc1327 refs rfc0822
rfc1486 refs
The IESG has received a request from the Robust Header Compression WG
(rohc) to consider the following document:
- 'Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) '
draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-sip-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
The IESG has received a request from the RADIUS EXTensions WG (radext)
to consider the following document:
- 'RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication '
draft-ietf-radext-rfc4590bis-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
69th IETF Meeting
Chicago, IL, USA
July 22-27, 2007
Host: Motorola
For attendees who live outside of the United States, we would like to
remind you to check visa requirements for travel to the IETF-69 in
Chicago, IL. If your home country does not participate in the Visa Waiver
Program:
19 matches
Mail list logo
