On 2 mar 2009, at 04.12, John C Klensin wrote:
I am not suggesting trying to undo this decision, but believe
that, as ISOC adds sufficient technically-qualified staff to
engage in activities like this on its own, we need to work,
collectively, on better ways to facilitate communication in a
time
SM wrote:
As this draft is being considered as a Proposed Standard, will it be
authoritative instead of RFC 5821/5322?
This presumes that there are different semantics or syntax offered by them.
What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them.
Again, we should note tha
At 10:10 26-02-2009, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Internet Mail Architecture '
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
Patrik,
I fear that I need to side with Dave on this (!). For issues at
the technology-policy boundary, ISOC is seen in the outside
community as the representative and "voice" of the IETF. That
is generally a good thing and it is an impression many of us
have worked for years to create. However
My concern regarding this announcement is the fact that it gives support to a
misguided effort by Liberty Alliance. I think it is somewhat irresponsible for
the ISOC to actively support an effort without first engaging the community at
large to fully understand the dynamics of the identity commu
At Sun, 1 Mar 2009 19:59:00 +0200,
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management space is not
> running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example, come up
> with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium (see
> http://www
Hi Dave and Hannes,
Thank you for triggering this useful discussion. And thank you to
Brian, Patrik and Lucy for their comments as well. A number of good
points have been raised both on the topic and others on the ISOC-IETF
intersection.These are items to be taken up with the ISOC Boa
So I do not think IETF should be the slightest worried ISOC is doing
something here without coordination. And without visibility to the IETF.
And the more people in IETF is interested on this more "meta-level-work"
than bits on the wire, the higher the quality will be of the work ISOC
does.
Patrik Fältström wrote:
So I do not think IETF should be the slightest worried ISOC is doing
something here without coordination. And without visibility to the IETF.
I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't expressing worry. I was noting
that the activity wasn't discussed with the broad
On 1 mar 2009, at 22.21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
In any event, if it something ISOC considers worth making a
strategic relationship about, and it is likely to entail Internet
technical standards, then it would be strange to have the IETF skip
dealing with it.
As Lycy said, we in ISOC BoT do
Brian
Taking a loose view of the OSI 7 layer stack for a moment - is there
any group that's looking at more than 3 layers?
Identity, as you know, can be at layer2 for link access sign on (the
IEEE is addressing this area).
There's identity associated to an IP address.
There's identity ass
On 2009-03-02 10:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> On 2009-03-02 07:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> ...
>>> What is particularly interesting to me, about this line of comment, is
>>> not whether the relevant IETF-based technologies are superior or whether
>>
>> Can
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2009-03-02 07:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
What is particularly interesting to me, about this line of comment, is
not whether the relevant IETF-based technologies are superior or whether
Can you point me to the IETF WG(s) that are considering identity
manage
Dave,
On 2009-03-02 07:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
> What is particularly interesting to me, about this line of comment, is
> not whether the relevant IETF-based technologies are superior or whether
Can you point me to the IETF WG(s) that are considering identity
management as a whole? I know the
Hannes,
Let me as a member of ISOC BoT that is appointed by the IETF explain a
bit more on what Lucy just explained below. I hope first of all that
you specifically noted that ISOC is looking for coordination with many
groups. This implies that when you or anyone else see some formal
conn
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Someone could, for example, come up
with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium (see
http://www.kerberos.org/), as Kerberos is a technology developed within the
IETF, or to support technologies like OpenID, OAuth, etc. that are closer to
the
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example, come up
with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos Consortium (see
http://www.kerberos.org/), as Kerberos is a technology developed within the
IE
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I would like to hear a bit more background about these activities, see
https://www.projectliberty.org/news_events/press_releases/internet_society_j
oins_liberty_alliance_management_board
Hannes -
As stated in the press release, ISOC has joined t
Alessandro Vesely writes...
> Using the Internet is not mandatory: it's free.
Well, that's just plain silly. Does your ISP not charge for access? Mine,
Comcast, charges me over $50 US per month. The Internet should be available
to all, but it cannot be truly free, as the fabric of the Internet
TSG wrote:
The creation of a standard *** should *** have
nothing to do with IP rights or licensing. The creation of any standard
should JUST be based on whether proper vetting happened and whether the
minimum number of ports was created and formally tested for
interoperability. Anyone - and I
20 matches
Mail list logo
