Marsh Ray wrote:
>
> On 4/23/2010 12:12 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >
> > Irrelevant: if the random octets being sent don't add entropy (because
> > they are sent in cleartext) then this extension is completely orthogonal
> > to PRNG failures.
>
> Even though they are sent in-the-clear, the ra
Tom,
Thanks for your comment.
>
> 3.4.1 says
>
> "The data plane behaviour of MPLS-TP is the same as the best current
>practise for MPLS. This includes the setting of the S-Bit. "
>
> Without a reference, or any detail, I think this can only
> muddy the waters. How do I know that your
Tom,
Many thanks for your comments. I have copied Loa who may want to respond to the
procedural comments.
Please see responses below for responses to technical/document content issues.
Best regards
Matthew, Stewart and Dan
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto
On 4/24/2010 2:11 PM, Philip Zimmermann wrote:
> David, thank you for reviewing our draft. Your suggestions were helpful.
>
> It was a pleasure talking with you on the phone. I'm glad we had a chance to
> discuss the points you raised.
>
> We addressed all the issues you raised in the next dra
Hi Ben,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:12 PM
> To: Martin Stiemerling; Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) Tschofenig;
> ced...@caoun.net; elw...@dial.pipex.com; General Area Review Team
> Cc: magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com; IETF
Colin, thanks for your review of our draft.
Your remarks were most helpful. I especially like what you've done in your own
draft on guidelines for VBR codecs and VAD problems. I now recommend that all
ZRTP endpoints follow your guidelines.
We have made changes to the next ZRTP draft, draft 18
David, thank you for reviewing our draft. Your suggestions were helpful.
It was a pleasure talking with you on the phone. I'm glad we had a chance to
discuss the points you raised.
We addressed all the issues you raised in the next draft, draft 18.
Regards,
Phil
On Mar 29, 2010, at 6:43 PM
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 07:13:14AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Hi again. It appears that people have a hard time with the additional
> random extension because it has limited applicability but I cannot
> fully state what that is. The purpose here is to help fix problems
> that shouldn't happen, an
On 2010/04/22 18:46, Mark Nottingham wrote:
That's a GREAT document and it makes me feel much better; thanks!
A bit of feedback:
* Section 2.1: "The registry operator maintains public mailing lists as specified in
IANA Considerations" -- is this always true? Many of the lists are @ietf.org;
