Hi Ben,
Thank you for your comments. Responding to most of them below (I will
respond to the rest in a separate message).
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote:
[...]
Minor issues:
[...]
-- section 4, first paragraph: ...as long as this alternative name doesn’t
conflict with any other hash function name from the IANA Hash Function
Textual Names registry.
What prevents future
Thank you Ben for reviewing and taking the time to go through the
document once more!
Agreed; Sorry, I missed that one.
I will make sure it is included in the next revision. I am sure you are
okay not to spin another revision unless this is the only outstanding
comment.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Hi,
This is a followup of my Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mext-binding-
revocation, updated based on revision 13 of that draft.
This revision addresses all of my substantive issues, and most of the
editorial issues. I had one outstanding minor editorial comment where
the author proposed a
On Oct 2, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
Thank you Ben for reviewing and taking the time to go through the
document once more!
Agreed; Sorry, I missed that one.
I will make sure it is included in the next revision. I am sure you
are
okay not to spin another revision unless this is
Hi Alexey,
Your responses in this and your other email address all of my comments.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net
wrote:
[...]
Minor issues:
[...]
-- section 4, first paragraph: ...as long
To the IETF area directors, MPLS and PWE3 working group chairs, document
authors and IETF community,
I've recently started looking at the MPLS-TP drafts and only this past week
have had an opportunity to review the OAM requirements draft for MPLS-TP. I
realize the IESG has requested Last Call
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 06:14:47PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote:
I'm no crypto expert, so please forgive me if this is silly--but isn't there
a movement to phase out sha-1? If so, should that be the default must
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:22:25PM -0500, Ben Campbell wrote:
-- 2nd paragraph: ...increase the iteration count over time.
Can you elaborate on how this helps, and possibly offer guidance on
how implementations should use it?
Good point. With SCRAM as specified, a server cannot increase
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 01:17:26PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 06:14:47PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote:
I'm no crypto expert, so please forgive me if this is silly--but isn't
there
a
SDH and EoSDH networks are widely used by Portugal Telecom Comunicacoes
(PTC) and TMN (respectively the incumbent operator in Portugal and PT
group's mobile operator), as well as foreign PT's clients (Brazilian Vivo,
for instance). These operators are used to both SDH and Ethernet's OAM
Sadler, Jonathan B. wrote:
ITU-T SG15 has a history of OAM protocol development for transport
technologies. This expertise has led to development of an OAM
methodology and definition approach as documented in G.806.
Jonathan
Unfortunately the latest version of G.806 is showing up as
I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked and
thought I might summarize some of the responses I got back to my email.
More inline Note all the comments below do not refer to the
Special Administrative Regions. I strongly support Ted's suggestion
that running the
On Sep 24, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Ole Jacobsen (ole) wrote:
Does your above response mean that the host would not consider
slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to
be part of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at
the conference? Or does your
+1 to Adrian's suggestion. I'd love to hear from people who live in
the PRC about any of the legal questions I have raised. Using specific
previous IETF discussions seems a fine way to look at it in a very
concrete way.
So far I have heard in private from more than one person that is not
Cullen,
I will only answer #5 here, since I am not a lawyer (the rest will
have to wait for now):
Most organizations, including the IETF, asks for ISO-3166 codes on the
registration form. Not all those codes are necessarily countries by
some other countries' definition, or even by the
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked and thought
I might summarize some of the responses I got back to my email.
More inline Note all the comments below do not refer to the
Special Administrative Regions. I strongly support Ted's
And just to be 100% clear: Holding the meeting in Hong Kong is not an
option for the current discussion. There is neither a host nor a venue
available there for the time period in question. It is entirely
possible, I will even go so far as to say probable, that we indeed
WILL meet in Hong
--On Monday, October 05, 2009 10:45 -0700 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked
and thought I might summarize some of the responses I got
back to my email.
More inline Note all the comments below
Hi Alexa,
How should one go about expressing to the hotel that they preferred
non-smoking but were unable to get it? I assume they need some lead
time for this, so mentioning it at arrival time might be too late.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
There are
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Cullen,
For purposes of discussion, one comment below and one addition
to your list...
--On Monday, October 05, 2009 11:07 -0600 Cullen Jennings
flu...@cisco.com wrote:
I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked
and
John C Klensin wrote:
Dave, I disagree, at least slightly,
The last paragraph of my note covered agendas like yours:
If the goal of your effort is to review and change IAOC responsibilities or
procedures for site selection and event management, then that ought to be
pursued
--On Monday, October 05, 2009 12:30 -0600 Cullen Jennings
flu...@cisco.com wrote:
...
Another piece of this question is whether PGP (or CACert)
key-signing activities, with signed private keys being taken
out of the country afterwards, would violate any law or
require a license. I had
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:42:44AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I will only answer #5 here, since I am not a lawyer (the rest will
have to wait for now):
I would hope the IAOC would see fit get formal legal advice on the
various issues which Cullen has raised before green-lighting an IETF
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the IAOC's
job for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to
ensure the
logistics for productive IETF meetings. The IETF as a body is not
likely to
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Well it sounds like we both agree that it is the IAOC job to make sure they
have answers to the questions I am raising before making a decision.
We are seeing a solid pattern to suggest that U.S. reading skills have declined
seriously.
I neither expressed nor
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Well it sounds like we both agree that it is the IAOC job to make
sure they
have answers to the questions I am raising before making a decision.
We are seeing a solid pattern to suggest that U.S. reading skills
The general internet community needs to be aware of activities in North
America that directly relate to the use of IETF protocols in the Electric
Utility industry. This activity is generally referred to as the SmartGrid.
Though the issues immediately deal with technical and policy decisions in
Thanks. You already know this, as does Russ Housley, but I'll say it
out loud for others to hear.
At the third NIST workshop on the Smart Grid, which was the week
following the IETF meeting, several IETFers were invited by David Su
of NIST to a workshop on the role of the Internet
Myself and others are deeply concerned by how this effort is developing.
There is no current consensus on what the communications architecture of the
SmartGrid is or how IP actually fits into it.
The Utility Industry does not understand the current IPv4 number exhaust
problem and the
It will certainly get their attention ... :-)
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The IETF and the SmartGrid
Myself and others are deeply
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the IAOC's job
for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to ensure
the
logistics for productive IETF meetings.
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the
IAOC's job for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and
Hi Fred and Michael,
This is Hiroshi Esaki of WIDE project, Japan.
We have long time worked on the introduction of IP technology into the
faculity networks, especially focusing on the usage of IPv6.
We run the Green University of Tokyo Project.
We have some professional operation using IPv6 on
Thank you for your response.
Is there any documentation URL's etc ( hopefully in English ) that you could
share?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Hiroshi Esaki
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:39 PM
To: Michael Dillon;
On 2009-10-06 10:20, Richard Shockey wrote:
...
The Utility Industry does not understand the current IPv4 number exhaust
problem and the consequences of that if they want to put a IP address on
every Utility Meter in North America.
Ironic, really, since IP addresses for every streetlight was
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
...
Perhaps the latter suggests a way for the IAOC to think about
this. Assume that, however unlikely it is, the meeting were
called off mid-way and that every IETF participant who attended
sued the IASA to recover the costs of leaving China
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Channel Bindings for TLS '
draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
38 matches
Mail list logo
