John Levine wrote on the IETF main list:
[ re _proto and _service names ]
...
Yes, I noticed that. As far as I can tell, the only _name entries
other than SRV protocols and services are _domainkey, _vouch, and
_adsp. It would be nice to collect them all in one place.
Yes, these underscore
I don't think it is a very good idea to attempt this type of work in
the IETF. We have enough difficulty doing crypto algorithms and that
is an area where we have tens of people with decades worth of
expertise who pretty much mostly agree on the algorithms to use in any
case.
An unencumbered
Ab arrq - jr nyernql unir ebg13!
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Randy Presuhn
randy_pres...@mindspring.com wrote:
Hi -
From: Richard L. Barnes rbar...@bbn.com
To: IETF Member Dave Aronson ietf2d...@davearonson.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
Hi,
I reflected your comments and just submitted a new version(-05).
Thanks,
Kenji
--
Kenji Kumaki, Ph.D. ke-kum...@kddi.com
IP Network Department
KDDI Corporation
c31006de-2c8d-4116-88ed-6464b56f0...@estacado.net の、
Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-04
において、
Ben
Quoting Phillip Hallam-Baker:
MP3 and AC3 are the existing industry standards.
These codecs are rarely used for real-time communications, mostly
because of their high bitrates/poor quality for voice signals.
So the most we are going to have is a document that
brings together all the
We actually already have done work in this area, RFC 3951.
What I think you say is that it in the IETF is hard to do work starting with a
white sheet of paper. And I agree with that. I do though think that is not
something special for IETF as an SDO, and I do specifically not think that is
- 'Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones '
draft-jabley-reverse-servers-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
By my reading, section 5 of this document asks IANA to delegate
IN-ADDR-SERVERS.ARPA and IP6-SERVERS.ARPA to a set of nameservers, but
it doesn't ask them to provide contents for the
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 12:45:07PM -0800, Glen wrote:
All -
For those of you who may have experienced alcohol-related blackouts in
the past 48 hours, please be advised that the year is now 2010.
Good morning/day:
I have received a surprising number of messages over the past 72 hours
pointing
The document aims to specify the names of the nameservers to which
IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA can be delegated to, and nothing more.
OK. Does that mean it'll take another RFC to do the actual delegation?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) Date: Mon, Jan
04, 2010 at 05:57:56PM +0100 Quoting Patrik Fältström (p...@cisco.com):
We actually already have done work in this area, RFC 3951.
What I think you say is that it in the IETF is hard to do work starting with
a
I've been thinking about the codec issue for a while. I think it is
really desirable for the IETF to charter this group. I don't think the
charter should prohibit the working group from selecting some existing
codec nor should it prohibit doing new work in this space.
I'm not really particularly happy with Joe's two recent DNS drafts.
They give me the impression as a reader that a lot of context is being
hidden from me and that the implications of the draft are being
carefully obscured so that I as a reviewer not involved in the process
won't know what is
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:43:27PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
They give me the impression as a reader that a lot of context is being
hidden from me and that the implications of the draft are being
carefully obscured so that I as a reviewer not involved in the process
won't know what is going
Hi Phil,
[Replying from jab...@hopcount.ca rather than joe.ab...@icann.org, since the
former is the address which is subscribed to the ietf@ietf.org list.]
On 2010-01-04, at 16:46, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2010-01-04 at 06:08 -0800, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an
On 2010-01-04, at 14:43, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm not really particularly happy with Joe's two recent DNS drafts.
If I can help clarify anything, please let me know.
They give me the impression as a reader that a lot of context is being
hidden from me and that the implications of the draft
If you could me more substantive guidance as to where the documents could be improved,
I'd be very happy. As things stand the best I can do is say I'm sorry :-)
Well, OK. Is there a plan to move the DNS for in-addr.arpa
and ip6.arpa to the new set of servers? If so, what is it? Will it
+1 Emphatically
If people want to do the work, why not let them try.
If they cannot succeed then shut it down.
That does bring up the more sensitive subject that the IETF as a whole needs
to consider which is when can it be determined that a WG is not succeeding.
That is a much much longer
On 2010-01-04, at 17:40, John R. Levine wrote:
If you could me more substantive guidance as to where the documents could be
improved, I'd be very happy. As things stand the best I can do is say I'm
sorry :-)
Well, OK. Is there a plan to move the DNS for in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa to
On 2010-01-04, at 17:59, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-01-04, at 17:40, John R. Levine wrote:
If you could me more substantive guidance as to where the documents could
be improved, I'd be very happy. As things stand the best I can do is say
I'm sorry :-)
Well, OK. Is there a plan to move
Joe == Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca writes:
Joe On 2010-01-04, at 14:43, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm not really particularly happy with Joe's two recent DNS drafts.
Joe If I can help clarify anything, please let me know.
So, I think John is asking the questions well about the in-addr.arpa
On 2010-01-04, at 19:23, Sam Hartman wrote:
So, I think John is asking the questions well about the in-addr.arpa
plan.
OK. I hope the answers are helpful.
For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to
exist.
We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of
--On Monday, January 04, 2010 17:59 -0800 Joe Abley
jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
...
The draft plan is to re-delegate IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA to
dedicated servers, named according to the text you have read.
The servers are to be operated by the five RIRs plus ICANN,
making six operators in
For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to
exist.
We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of the draft. I presume
that's what you meant?
It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the motivation for
adding SINK.ARPA when its semantics and
On 2010-01-04, at 21:50, John R. Levine wrote:
For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to
exist.
We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of the draft. I presume
that's what you meant?
It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the
On 2010-01-04, at 21:40, John C Klensin wrote:
Ok, Joe, a few questions since, as indicated in another note,
you are generating these documents in your ICANN capacity:
(1) If ICANN can re-delegate the servers for these domains
without IAB or IETF action, why is IETF action needed to create
It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the motivation for adding
SINK.ARPA when its semantics and operations, at least for clients, appear
identical to whatever.INVALID.
I don't know that I have anything much to add to my previous answers to that
question.
Well, at this point
On 2010-01-04, at 22:09, John R. Levine wrote:
It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the motivation for
adding SINK.ARPA when its semantics and operations, at least for clients,
appear identical to whatever.INVALID.
I don't know that I have anything much to add to my
I've done another version of my reserved names draft.
This time it proposes four registries:
1. Reserved and special top level names. ARPA is special, the others
are reserved.
2. Reserved and special second level names. EXAMPLE.COM, ORG, and
NET are reserved in the RFCs. ICANN has many
On 4 jan 2010, at 23.40, Sam Hartman wrote:
I've been thinking about the codec issue for a while. I think it is
really desirable for the IETF to charter this group. I don't think the
charter should prohibit the working group from selecting some existing
codec nor should it prohibit doing
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A SIP Event Package for Subscribing to Changes to an HTTP Resource '
draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones '
draft-jabley-reverse-servers-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
On Dec 29, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Season's Greetings!
This message is to announce that the IETF Trustees have adopted
on a new version of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP), to be
effective 28
December, 2009. The Grace period for old-boilerplate will
32 matches
Mail list logo
