Russ
I would like greater clarity about the meaning of pre-5378.
Ed's original announcement said that the new regime was in effect from 12
November 2008 (no time specified).
Ed's revised text uses 'before 10 November 2008' (no time specified).
Ed's original announcement also placed
I think a standard in this space is really needed. I would definitely
like to be able to include SAML assertions and other statements of
authorization as part of a TLS exchange.
In the appropriate environments I'd be willing to implement this spec
given the current IPR situation.
Tom:
RFC 5378 was published on 11 November 2008, and it went into effect
on that date. Pre-5378 material refers to contributions that were
made before the BCP went into effect. I do not believe that anyone
tracked the posting time at a finer granularity than a day.
Russ
The At 04:41 AM
I think a standard in this space is really needed. Given the revised
IPR statement, I think it is clear that it can be implemented widely.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
FYI - I've submitted the following comments last week sometime, but I
think they may be held up in the moderator queue:
I'm in the process updating reTurn (opensource Turn server in
resiprocate project) to the latest turn-12, and have the following
comments/typos after reviewing the draft.
1.
Sam Hartman wrote:
I think a standard in this space is really needed. I would definitely
like to be able to include SAML assertions and other statements of
authorization as part of a TLS exchange.
In the appropriate environments I'd be willing to implement this spec
given the current IPR
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com wrote:
Ed's original announcement also placed significance on 0100 UTC on 16th
December
appearing to allow a grace period up until then during which 5378 was not in
effect, since old boiler plate was acceptable.
This is not
On Jan 13, 2009, at 9:02 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Doug,
At 18:53 12-01-2009, Doug Otis wrote:
(see section 3.4.1 of [MAIL]) of an address, the pvalue reported
along with results for these mechanisms SHOULD NOT include the
local- part.
SHOULD NOT is not an recommendation to do something.
Like Stephen said, we have even more urgent problems if the attendance
goes way down. Lets focus our immediate energy on that front. I'm sure
the IAOC and Russ have already spent quite a bit of time on that...
Also, if this becomes a serious nomcom issue, I suspect the biggest hit
would be
Correction: RFC 5378 was published on 10 November 2008.
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2008-November/002142.html
Russ
At 11:20 AM 1/14/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
Tom:
RFC 5378 was published on 11 November 2008, and it went into effect
on that date. Pre-5378 material refers
On Jan 14, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
Somehow I haven't yet recieved the fourth last call, but only the
discussion Sigh.
see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/
msg05617.html
There are MANY reasons that this should not be brought to a FOURTH
last
Dean and the IESG:
I will respond to some, but not all of Dean's points.
3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent lawsuit where
the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to Housley/Brown/Polk et al
and was found to have engaged in aggravated litigation abuse. In that
case,
Dean == Dean Anderson d...@av8.com writes:
Dean 3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent
Dean lawsuit where the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to
Dean Housley/Brown/Polk et al and was found to have engaged in
Dean aggravated litigation abuse. In that
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed on I-Ds and RFCs.
However, the definition of contribution in that document
includes, among other
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed on I-Ds and RFCs.
However, the definition of
On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has
At 1:38 PM +1300 1/15/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed
On 2009-01-14 at 08:18 -0800, The IESG wrote:
Since the third Last Call, RedPhone Security filed IETF IPR disclosure
1026. This disclosure statement asserts in part that the techniques
for sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations
Extensions (version
Title: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is problematic (ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
- Original Message -
From:
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 04:32:09 Raman Chan sent:
HIP?
In HIP the Host Identity is a public key. I suggest that node identity be
network connectivity cognition, i.e., an identity address shall be an
acquaintance path to a node. Acquaintant are two nodes that know each other's
unicast
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
No, absolutely not.nbsp; Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards
process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is problematic
(ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
Why is the actual situation
Hi -
Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean that if a WG
really has no concern that the documents it's working on would be
spun off to another organization, then it doesn't need to
worry about tracking down contributors?
Randy
From: Contreras, Jorge jorge.contre...@wilmerhale.com
To:
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 '
draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-05.txt as a Draft Standard
This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are David Ward and Ross Callon.
A URL of this
On June 27, 2006, the IESG approved Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Authorization Extensions, (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a
proposed standard. On November 29, 2006, Redphone Security (with
whom Mark Brown, a co-author of the draft is affiliated) filed IETF IPR
disclosure 767.
Because of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The use of the SIPS URI Scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) '
draft-ietf-sip-sips-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Session Initiation Protocol Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are
A modified charter has been submitted for the IP Performance Metrics
(ippm) working group in the Transport Area of the IETF. The IESG has not
made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing list
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5392
Title: OSPF Extensions in Support of
Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering
Author: M. Chen, R. Zhang, X.
27 matches
Mail list logo
