From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Randy Presuhn wrote:
However, the vocabulary, style, content, and peculiar world-view of
this latest missive leave me more convinced than ever that LB
is indeed JFC Morphin, and that under the terms of RFC 3683
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I'm amazed that the downref isn't being called out in the
Last Call announcement
I wonder if you confused downref with the opposite case
for EAI, the drafts modify more mature RFCs, in essence
2822 and arguably MIME, that's an upref, not a downref.
If John *would*
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
I don't know but, in this case, the problem is not that he used a
pseudonym (after all, noone here knows if
Spencer Dawkins skrev:
Hi, Harald,
Thanks for the quick feedback (Gen-ART reviewers like this because we
can remember writing the review, and at least part of what we were
thinking about :-)
Looks like mostly goodness. If we're in synch, I dropped it from this
e-mail.
Spencer
1.2.
For example, consider using a USRK to secure HTTP. If your access
provider did this to deliver firmware updates to your handset, this
might be reasonable, but if amazon.com required it for authentication,
this would be unreasonable.
I do not believe that either application is reasonable.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:32:42 +0100
Frank Ellerman nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de said:
Apologies, I confused (1) and (2):
[...]
1 - The use of a nested CTE B64 if all else fails to send
DSNs to an EAI sender with a 7bit bit hop on the route.
2 - The use of UTF-8 in MIME version 1.0
I sigh in my own general direction ;-)
1.2. Relation to other standards
This document also updates [RFC2822] and MIME, and the fact that an
experimental specification updates a standards-track spec means that
people who participate in the experiment have to consider those
standards
On 19 mrt 2008, at 1:46, Eric Rescorla wrote:
A more interesting experiment would be to do away with SSL for a bit
and use IPsec instead.
Why would this be either interesting or desirable?
SSL is vulnerable to more attacks than IPsec and IPsec is more general
than SSL. As such it would be
On 16 mrt 2008, at 21:42, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
... Nearly all IETF mailinglists are still hosted on IPv4-only
servers, to name just one issue.
Umm... At this time, most IETF mailing lists are hosted on
mail.ietf.org a.k.a. www.ietf.org, which is IPv6 enabled.
(The numbers I have for
Finally back at the office today...
While it is a fact of life that sessions clash at IETF meetings, I
must say that Philadelphia has been especially bad in this regard.
Does anyone else have the same experience?
If it wasn't just me, I think it's time to look at the scheduling
algorithm
Umm... At this time, most IETF mailing lists are hosted on
mail.ietf.org a.k.a. www.ietf.org, which is IPv6 enabled.
(The numbers I have for active WGs are that 90 out of 120 lists
are hosted on ietf.org). I can't really reconcile that with
your statement above. Could you expand on your
I cannot find one. It seem to be a hole than needs filled.
Russ
At 11:45 AM 3/23/2008, Christian Huitema wrote:
Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the
name of a famous French aviation pioneer is in
one has to schedule unpleasentness, since there is so much of it.
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
___
IETF mailing list
Iljitsch,
I'm not sure that I would say that Philadelphia was
worse than most meetings, but it may have been from your
perspective.
This sort of scheduling problem is very well known
to be NP hard and trying to meet the scheduling conflict
matrix for 1500 to 2500 people would
The closest I could find was:
Working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing list is
manageable. For example, some may try to circumvent the revocation
of their posting rights by changing email addresses; accordingly it
should be possible to restrict the new email address.
from
On 24 Mar 2008, at 11:18 , Marc Manthey wrote:
hello ipv6 peoples, sorry for crossposting
how can i use ipv6 from my machine ?
using leopard 10.5.2. mail ?
my endpoint is 2001:6f8:1051:0:20d:93ff:fe79:f1e
thought its automatic :-P
I think you just need to make sure that the servers
These claims are meaningless to me. Transport and network layer security have
distinct objectives and purposes. They are not replacements or interchangeable
in any sense.
If you beleive that there is an attack that SSL is vulnerable to you should
bring it up in TLS.
In general the higher
Iljitsch,
Tell me about it... I had more than one WGs of my own meeting at the
same time (6MAN and MEXT), triple booked on slots like the Tuesday
morning slot where we had MEXT, V6OPS, and RRG at the same time, etc.
INT has for years generally met (at least!) twice on every slot, and the
ADs
Enough, already.
If we are going to have experiments in IETF week then lets do the thing right
and have a process. In particular -
Proposer MUST write an Internet Draft prior to the experiment stating:
1) Purpose - the information to be obtained
2) Method - what it to be done
3) Resources -
Phillip, Iljitsch,
If you beleive that there is an attack that SSL is vulnerable to you
should bring it up in TLS.
I think Iljitsch meant that TLS cannot protect against TCP
vulnerabilities, such as spoofed connection resets. This is obviously
well known.
The upside of TLS has of course been
Phillip,
write an Internet Draft prior to the experiment,
+1
*IPv6 Next Steps*
The Philadelphia IPv6 outage tested one specific aspect of the
transition - is there an IPv6 network on the other side to connect to
in due course, is it possible to run a pure IPv6 network?
I think that
Charles,
-Original Message-
From: Charles Clancy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 7:18 PM
To: Narayanan, Vidya
Cc: Glen Zorn; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bernard Aboba
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] EMSK Issue
Vidya,
... do the responsible thing, which
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Saturday, 22 March, 2008 23:02 -0700 Douglas Otis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The update of RFC2821 is making a _significant_
architectural change to SMTP by explicitly stating
records are within a list of SMTP server discovery records.
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Saturday, 22 March, 2008 23:02 -0700 Douglas Otis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The update of RFC2821 is making a _significant_
architectural change to SMTP by explicitly stating
records are within a list of SMTP server discovery records.
Phillip:
Have you tried the SSID at the IETF meetings that is configured to make
use of 802.1x?
Russ
At 01:49 PM 3/24/2008, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Secure WiFi Connection
I would like to see some demonstration of the fact that the default WiFi
configuration on all existing platforms
John Leslie wrote:
Whether or not we have any consensus that this historical
practice should be deprecated (I would vote YES!),
+1
rfc2821-bis is not, IMHO, the right place to deprecate it.
It could be seen as an unintended chance to keep out
of this business, because RFC 2821 forgot
During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
heads up on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
call. The Last Call announcements are attached. Please review and comment.
Russ
== == == == ==
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Saturday, 22 March, 2008 23:02 -0700 Douglas Otis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The update of RFC2821 is making a _significant_ architectural
change to SMTP by explicitly stating records are
Cher Russ,
The debate about me is depressing. Only signatories to the PR-action
against JFC Morfin are interested. They are not very credible. Their
doctrine is globalization: internationalization of the medium
(Unicode), localization of the terminal (CLDR) and identification of
linguistic context
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Saturday, 22 March, 2008 23:02 -0700 Douglas Otis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The update of RFC2821 is making a _significant_ architectural
change to SMTP by explicitly stating records are
Eric Gray wrote:
Iljitsch,
I'm not sure that I would say that Philadelphia was
worse than most meetings, but it may have been from your
perspective.
Iljitsch is far from alone, just the earliest and most vocal of us. :-)
This sort of scheduling problem is very well known
On 3/24/08, Brian Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Gray wrote:
This sort of scheduling problem is very well known
to be NP hard and trying to meet the scheduling conflict
matrix for 1500 to 2500 people would make the N large.
Universities have been doing this
FWIW, my opinion is that if you want to accept incoming mail via IPv6,
you need to advertise one or more MX records that point to ipv6-capable
hosts.
Treating A records (in the absence of MX records) as implicit MX
records was a hack needed to avoid forcing everyone to advertise an MX
record
Ned Freed wrote:
If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
FWIW, I'd like that...
Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
by limiting discovery to just A and MX records. Perhaps a
note might
Brian,
See below... :-)
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-Original Message-
From: Brian Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 6:16 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote a message
which included:
using pseudonyms is a form of free speech
I am not familiar with the specifics of this case but in the internet world
pseudonyms is very common.
I agree that in a standard setting body hiding
On 3/24/08, Brian Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Gray wrote:
This sort of scheduling problem is very well known
to be NP hard and trying to meet the scheduling conflict
matrix for 1500 to 2500 people would make the N large.
Universities have been doing this
Well I would submit that there is a major problem there on the security
usability front.
Don't make me think. My tolerance for network configuration is vastly greater
than the typical user.
This has to all just work, just like my Apple Mac did on the home network the
day I bought it. Not
I am willing to have a go at it next time round but only if I have some idea
what I am expected to have on my machine and what authentication indicata I am
to expect.
As it stands there is no way for me to evaluate an authentic or inauthentic
experience. I don't know what authentic looks like.
Charles Lindsey wrote:
none of the MUAs available to me allow manual tinkering with
References (and, worse, the ietf archives don't show Message-ID
headers at all)
From my POV news://news.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
was still okay apart from my unnecessary (1) and (2) confusion,
same as
Charles Clancy wrote:
Text from MIL-STD-188-220D, published March 2008:
Something tells me they haven't updated this boilerplate since the
1980s. I'm surprised there weren't any references to GOPHER.
The use of WAIS dates it's origin to the 1991-1993 era...
On 25 mar 2008, at 02.18, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I am willing to have a go at it next time round but only if I have
some idea what I am expected to have on my machine and what
authentication indicata I am to expect.
As it stands there is no way for me to evaluate an authentic or
Diving into solutions space
The WG scheduling tool has 3 lists of groups to avoid conflicts with,
1st, 2nd and 3rd priority.
I don't know if these are visible to anyone but the requesting WG Chair,
but they're listed on the confirmation notice from the tool; I've made
it a practice to
Russ Housley skrev:
I cannot find one. It seem to be a hole than needs filled.
Solution space:
At the time when I was assistant chair of the ICANN DNSO General
Assembly, we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
Harald,
Even a simpler solution. If you (meaning Iljitsch) had serious conflicts,
then let the WG chairs know about these conficts. They may may not on the
WG Chairs' radars. That has happened to me, where WG members were
overlapping with groups that I was unaware of.
John
On Mon, Mar 24,
The IESG has received a request from the Intellectual Property Rights WG
(ipr) to consider the following document:
- 'Rights Contributors provide to the IETF Trust '
draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-08.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
46 matches
Mail list logo
