We heard at the mike and at the IESG table this evening that BOFs shouldn't be
scheduled
simultaneously with area open meetings.
So why don't we reserve one room for all of the afternoon sessions for either a
BOF or an area meeting ?
This should leave enough spiel to play with at the last
http://www.isoc.org/ion/presenters/
John Brzozowski, Comcast
Eric Burger, Chairman Emeritus, SIP Forum
Andy Davidson, Netsumo
Ralph Droms, Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chris Griffiths, Comcast
Richard Jimmerson, Chief Information Officer, American Registry for
Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Eric
We think the security considerations should be based on a threat model of
OAuth. But a complete threat model would blow up the spec.
We therefore aim to produce a separate security document (informational
I-D/RFC) covering threat model as well as security design and considerations.
The
(With apologies for bringing up a tangential matter...)
Talking about the OAuth model, I still see here Client instead of
Consumer. I thought there was an agreement on the terminology
change. I have no specific preference for either term, but I think it
is essential that our terminology be
To provide a complete picture, I should have said something about the
P2PSIP working group in the announcement. Sorry for omitting it.
Because the P2PSIP WG is nearing the end of its chartered work, P2PSIP
is not being moved from the RAI Area to the TSV Area.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley
Issue here is that guarantees (and what you want as a guarantee may not be what
somebody else wants) can vary depending on scenario and deployment.
-Original Message-
From: Richard L. Barnes [mailto:rbar...@bbn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 12:54 AM
To: tors...@lodderstedt.net
Of course not every scenario calls for all of the security knobs to be
turned to 11. Think of things instead in terms of syllogisms: IF you
want X guarantee, THEN you MUST do A, B, C.
Then you can also read the same things backwards in a given deployment
scenario: Given that I can't do B, I
[That is some cc list! Do you really need a cc list that large for this
thread? I've set the reply-to to just oa...@ietf.org (note: I'm NOT
subscribed to that list). Please honor the reply-to header. It's a
good idea to set reply-to when making announcements, so that replies
don't flood people
Dave:
The document says:
(Full) Internet Standard: The Internet community achieves rough
consensus -- on using the running code of a specification.
This causes me pause, because it does not say that the RFC was sufficient
to produce interoperable implementations.
Perhaps this
When retrieving IDs or RFC from the tools.ietf.org or datatracker.ietf.org the
file has only LFs
rather than CR+LF.
Yes, it is easy enough to convert this for simple reading on Windows machines,
but it is inconvenient to have to do this every time.
Could it be possible to change the default
On 11/11/2010 11:14 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
(Full) Internet Standard: The Internet community achieves rough
consensus -- on using the running code of a specification.
This causes me pause, because it does not say that the RFC was sufficient
to produce interoperable
Use ftp to retrieve them. Set ASCII mode. Your line ending problems
will be solved.
Tony
On 11/10/2010 10:26 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
When retrieving IDs or RFC from the tools.ietf.org or
datatracker.ietf.org the file has only LFs
rather than CR+LF.
Yes, it is easy enough to convert
Folks,
On 11/11/2010 12:25 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
To establish the base: It is not possible to achieve widespread use on the
Internet without having multiple components interacting. That's called
interoperability.
However, the interoperability might be among components that are clones of a
13 matches
Mail list logo
