ALL my IETF mailing lists come to email accounts that I control on my
own mail server. but
I recently submitted my first Internet Draft since my company was bought
by a BIG TELCO, and it has BIG email filtering rules. In large part
these rules were developed by my colleagues in the other
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> ALL my IETF mailing lists come to email accounts that I control on my own
> mail server. but
>
> I recently submitted my first Internet Draft since my company was bought by
> a BIG TELCO, and it has BIG email filtering rules. In large part these
> rules were develop
IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
ALL my IETF mailing lists come to email accounts that I control on my own
mail server. but
I recently submitted my first Internet Draft since my company was bought by
a BIG TELCO, and it has BIG email filtering rules. In large pa
On 2009-12-08, at 13:22, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Or is there a way already to customize this that I missed?
You can submit a draft using the I-D submission tool using an address that is
not listed in the document as an author's address.
You can validate a draft for submission using the I-D s
Bob:
There are no attachments in I-D Submission verification email
messages from the online I-D Submission tool. The most recent one I
got went like this:
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool
To: hous...@vigilsec.com
Subject: I-D Submitter Authentication for
Date: ,date.
Please follow the link
Indeed, that was my first reaction as well.
Both RFCs are standards track, which I have been told updating is an
involved process, especially since RFC3230 hasn't seen much
implementation until we started using it (AFAIK). Now we have a few
clients and more on the way.
I was advised just to updat
Hi Jerry
I think that the reason of removing the "Maximum Packet Size [M]
(32-bit unsigned integer)" parameter from the QSPEC specification was
that this parameter is only relevant for some QoS models that are used
on an end-to-end basis, such as Y.1541 QOSM. I would therefore prefer
that this pa
Chris Newman wrote:
>
> Evaluation relative to draft-mrex-tls-secure-renegotiation-03:
>
> Kudos to Martin Rex for producing such a good alternate proposal. The
> introductory text up to and including section 4.1 is very good and would
> improve draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation. While I would sup
Russ Housley wrote:
Bob:
There are no attachments in I-D Submission verification email messages
from the online I-D Submission tool. The most recent one I got went
like this:
Thanks Russ. I just got a call from our IT guy that will look at the log
and see what happened to the verificaiton e
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
But the short of it is that only a small selection of email attachments
are let through and otherwise the email is dropped silently. Thus the
email for validating an ID submission never got to my corporate email
account.
I doubt that I-D transaction messages confor
Dave, Bob,
I do not, offhand, know any any interesting vocabulary or text pattern
in these messages that ought to be problematic.
All upper case text. Just a wild guess.
But its good that Bob's IT person has promised to figure this out. The
filters seem simply too sensitive. I have not heard
Hi,
I'm in favour of publishing this document.
I'm wondering which of the two relevant guidelines for Experimental
status in http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
applies in this case.
Looking at the writeup in the tracker:
"This document presents a working example of the v
12 matches
Mail list logo
