Steven Bellovin wrote:
Because the strong consensus of the IPR WG a few years ago was to keep
the current policy. As Ted Hardie pointed out, that group's mailing
list is the correct place to raise this issue -- but frankly, I don't
think the consensus has changed since the issue was last
On Tue, 2007-09-25, Pars Mutaf wrote:
On 9/25/07, Suresh Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pars Mutaf wrote:
Model of operation
1. The querier user types the target user's human name (as if he were
consulting a phonebook), or a pseudoynm.
2. The pairing request is forwarded to the
Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott Brim responded:
I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg.
I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask that we
NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its charter is
revised to allow it to
Hello thanks for the question, I'm pasting a note that
I wrote in a previous I-D:
(I'm not entering here into solution discussions!)
Regards,
pars
4. Name collisions
With the traditional phone book, the querier can filter the returned
results using some other information about the
On 9/26/07, John L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can enable this protocol when you need to pair your phone
with another user's phone. Because manual exchange is difficult.
Now I don't understand what problem you are trying to solve. If the two
phones are physically close to each other, we
On 9/26/07, John L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a Turing test (CAPTCHA) for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
There are many well known ways to defeat CAPTCHAs, unfortunately.
It depends on the CAPTCHA you are using and your application.
You may want to take a look at
Please refer to my first mail. There are three basic problems that I
see.
1. You don't want to publish your private information
2. Manual exchange is difficult
Ridiculous! I give my phone to the other person and ask
them to dial my number and call me. Now we both have a
record of each others'
On 9/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please refer to my first mail. There are three basic problems that I
see.
1. You don't want to publish your private information
2. Manual exchange is difficult
Ridiculous! I give my phone to the other person and ask
them to dial my
Chris Elliott wrote:
You mean like:
Cisco is the owner of US published patent applications 20050154872 and
20050154873 and one or more pending unpublished patent applications
relating to the subject matter of Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Session Resumption without Server Side State
On 25-sep-2007, at 2:18, Mark Andrews wrote:
You are comingling way too many things here. Let me simply conclude
that foo.example.org is the first name that is tried and since it
exists what comes back for that name is what's going to be used.
Actually it isn't specified what should
Pars Mutaf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/26/07, John L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
approaches that depend on something like a CAPTCHA to
work don't have much of a long term future.
I respect your opinion but it says that one day we won't be able to tell
humans and
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700
Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask
that we NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its
charter is revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR
policies with
Hi Pars,
This is the classic John Smith problem, what you mention comes after
the target is identified, but first comes the John Smith problem,
there could be multiple John Smiths so it is necessary which John
Smith the querier wants further as is also mentioned by others in
these discussions the
IETF member Dave Aronson wrote:
Pars Mutaf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/26/07, John L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
approaches that depend on something like a CAPTCHA to
work don't have much of a long term future.
I respect your opinion but it says that one day we
Virendra Gandhi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is the classic John Smith problem,
As an interesting (at least to me) side note: The most common *given* name in
the world is Mohammed. The most common *family* name in the world is Chang.
This does *not* mean that Mohammed Chang is a
CAPTCHA is by definition an attempt to create a Turing test, its what the T
stands for.
The question is whether 1) a particular CAPTCHA is an effective Turing test and
2) whether an effective Turing test is an effective security measure.
The answer to the first question is usually yes and the
Simon,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. One overall comment: this
Last Call
reflects my personal opinion that the document merits publication,
and no
decision or opinion should be inferred with respect to other members
of the
IESG. My further comments/responses are inline...
On
On 26 Sep 2007 at 14:06 +0200, Harald Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
Note that if:
- Company A has a patent on nanosecond gate opening
- Company A has issued the claim above, in conjunction with an IETF
standard
- Company B has a patent on the application of slow-drying oil paint
-
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 01:54, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is considering approving this draft as an experimental track
RFC with knowledge of the IPR disclosure from Redphone Security. The
IESG solicits final comments on whether the IETF community has
consensus to publish
On 2007-09-27 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
At 10:02 AM +0200 9/26/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hear, hear. I believe a significant part of the IETF community would
agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would
be very useful for the IETF community as well. When I
On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:19 PM, Felipe Rodrigues wrote:
Yes marc! It's my site. It's a little freeze for the time, but I'll
post something soon. I'm from Brazil, so the articles are writen in
Brazilian Portuguese and english.
ola felipe,
I was really concerned about privacy in chats through
good evening ,
there was an intersting statement a while ago in the apple streaming
list that i like to share:
---
If you use a technique covered by a patent for your own, private
use, you are not obliged to pay royalty fees.
-- if you compile sources and build an executable you can then
On 25-sep-2007, at 2:18, Mark Andrews wrote:
You are comingling way too many things here. Let me simply conclude
that foo.example.org is the first name that is tried and since it
exists what comes back for that name is what's going to be used.
Actually it isn't specified what
23 matches
Mail list logo
