Hello,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
Vint,
Congraturation, (again)!
jun
=
http://www.japanprize.jp/prize/2008/e1_cerf.htm
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hello,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
RFC 4693, Section 4 says:
This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months,
starting from the date of the first ION published using this
mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a
call for comments from the community, asking for people to state
their agreement
I have to agree with Fred here:
On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I would argue that (1) has not been shown. Several IONs have been
produced, but I don't see people referring to them. It looks like
it is being treated as a lightweight way to publish something a lot
like an
On 2008-01-18 08:33, Dan York wrote:
I have to agree with Fred here:
On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I would argue that (1) has not been shown. Several IONs have been
produced, but I don't see people referring to them. It looks like it
is being treated as a lightweight way to
Harald:
This is my reservation as well. The ION process has not been as
light-weight as I would like. Frankly, it is easier to generate an
IESG Statement than an ION.
Russ
At 05:27 PM 1/17/2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Being the RFC author, I'm naturally very much interested.
Being the RFC author, I'm naturally very much interested.
still, I'll observe that the procedure that seemed most important to me,
which was getting new versions out whenever they were needed, has been
exercised exactly once: in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/dated/,
the only document
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
a) when RFC 2821 was written IPv6 existed and RFC 2821 acknowledged
its existance. It did DID NOT say synthesize from .
RFC 2821 only talks about IPv6 domain literals. The MX resolution
algorithm in section 5 is written as if in
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational documents in the sense of the
enumeration above, with special tagging applied.
That's certainly true
On 2008-01-18 13:14, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:50 PM +1300 1/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are
sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational
Greetings again. In the year or so since the revised Tao of the IETF
has come out, a few people have pointed out errors. I have started a
new version; see below. We'll probably leave this as an I-D for about
a year to catch up with changes in the IETF (IONs maybe?), then
submit it for IETF
Paul Hoffman skrev:
At 12:50 PM +1300 1/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs
are sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational documents in the sense of
At 12:50 PM +1300 1/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational documents in the sense of the
enumeration
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
[BCP}
I long ago proposed splitting the series into the two effective
subseries it has - process documents and forcefully recommended
advice to operators/implementors - but that obvious move is Just
Too Much Of A Hassle
...it could be more straight forward than
At 3:52 AM +0100 1/18/08, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Or maybe TAO is the IETF user manual and public FAQ, while IONs
not limited to Procdoc are the reference manual for folks trying
to figure out why user manual and implementation are different.
Something along that line, yes. The Tao really
On 17-Jan-2008, at 18:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are
sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational documents in the sense of the
enumeration above, with
Total of 84 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 18 00:53:02 EST 2008
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
9.52% |8 | 12.71% |66954 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10.71% |9 | 8.73% |45975 | [EMAIL
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IPFIX Implementation Guidelines '
draft-ietf-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-08.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the IP Flow Information Export Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron
There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 71st
IETF Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, USA:
February 18th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00)
Internet-Draft Submissions
All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday,
February 18th at 9:00 AM ET (14:00
20 matches
Mail list logo
