Re: Pointing to IANA registries

On 18.04.2010 22:10, Jari Arkko wrote: I agree of course that uniqueness should be a MUST. But while I don't feel strongly about this, I'm actually a little reluctant to put permanent URIs to RFC. First of all, from the point of > ... Like http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc or http:

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

On 18.04.2010 19:37, Steven Bellovin wrote: ... You submit I-Ds via https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi; as long as you meet the publication requirements (formatting, boilerplate, etc.) and don't name is as a working group draft without the consent of the chairs, publication is more o

RE: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

Hi, This was my question, if you registered the OIDs then it is OK. Roni Even > -Original Message- > From: Sean Turner [mailto:turn...@ieca.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 11:19 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; ietf@ietf.org; draft-turner- > asymmetrickeyformat...

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

On Apr 8, 2010, at 13:51 , Scott Lawrence wrote: > > Perhaps our fundamental disagreement is whether or not having a prompt > way to reconfigure a UA is a requirement. When the SIP Forum chartered > this work, it was agreed that that was requirement (and I certainly > think it is). I think tha

Re: Pointing to IANA registries

Couldn't IANA just implement the "search format" as http://www.iana.org/assignments/Registry-Name and cut out the middle man? Regarding the "20 year" argument, it seems to imply that one of the following will happen in that time scale: 1) HTTP will be replaced by another protocol in a non-

Re: Pointing to IANA registries

If my memory is correct, we've had the discussion about completely stable registry URLs with IANA a few times, each time with a result more or less equivalent to your "20+ years" concern. That concern is increased by periodic discussions about the possibility of splitting up components of the IANA

Re: Rationale for public, non-subscribable mailing lists

On 2010-04-19 08:29, Florian Weimer wrote: > I've recently tried to subscribe to the SECDIR list. Apparently, this > list is public (it's archived on the web), but one cannot subscribe to > it. > > The question is: Why would anyone configure things this way? It's > really, really odd. > > (It w

Rationale for public, non-subscribable mailing lists

I've recently tried to subscribe to the SECDIR list. Apparently, this list is public (it's archived on the web), but one cannot subscribe to it. The question is: Why would anyone configure things this way? It's really, really odd. (It was suggested to me that I posted something to the SECDIR li

Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

Roni Even wrote: Hi, I will provide an example This draft defines AsymmetricKeyPackageModuleV1 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-asymmetricKeyPkgV1(50) } RFC 5652 defines CryptographicMessageSyntax2004 { iso(1)

Re: Pointing to IANA registries

I agree of course that uniqueness should be a MUST. But while I don't feel strongly about this, I'm actually a little reluctant to put permanent URIs to RFC. First of all, from the point of the RFC in question the registry use is largely a publication-time issue. If I implement RFC XXX all the

RE: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

Hi, I will provide an example This draft defines AsymmetricKeyPackageModuleV1 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-asymmetricKeyPkgV1(50) } RFC 5652 defines CryptographicMessageSyntax2004 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(84

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

>]Thanks for the info. I'm reading the documents to figure out how IETF process >works... The Toa of the IETF: >So basically, you write an I-D, send it to RFC editor. It gets published, >people discuss it. Later on it expires and is removed. RFCs are never expire

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

Steven, Marshall, So basically, you write an I-D, send it to RFC editor. It gets published, people discuss it. Later on it expires and is removed. Not quite -- the RFC editor gets involved only when the decision has been made to publish it as an RFC. You submit I-Ds via https://datatracker.

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:31 59PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: On 04/18/2010 06:58 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: Is there a standard way to publish a "call for discussion" memo? Yes, an internet-draft, perhaps containg prose suc

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:31 59PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: > Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >> On 04/18/2010 06:58 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: >>> Is there a standard way to publish a "call for discussion" memo? >> Yes, an internet-draft, perhaps containg prose such as "this draft is >> intended to initiate di

Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

Roni, Thanks for your review. Comments inline. spt Roni Even wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your docum

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: On 04/18/2010 06:58 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: Is there a standard way to publish a "call for discussion" memo? Yes, an internet-draft, perhaps containg prose such as "this draft is intended to initiate discussion. At this time, the author does not intend it to reach R

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

On 04/18/2010 06:58 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: Is there a standard way to publish a "call for discussion" memo? Yes, an internet-draft, perhaps containg prose such as "this draft is intended to initiate discussion. At this time, the author does not intend it to reach RFC status." A little la

Publishing call for discussion?

Hi, Is there a standard way to publish a "call for discussion" memo? Searching though RFCs is seems there exists such type of document. For instance RFC 970 says: "The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on particular problems in the ARPA-Internet and possible methods of solution.