I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-15
Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 18:44:
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying here but you are avoiding the issue
I am concerned with. Is allocating a second port for the secure version of a
document a frivolous use case or not? I read this draft as saying it is.
Others read the draft
Seems relevant
http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/leading-global-internet-groups-make-significant-announcement-about-the-status-of-the-ipv4-address-pool
or
http://bit.ly/hPZ40t
Leading Global Internet Groups make Significant Announcement about the Status
of the IPv4 Address Pool
Sorry for this - please ignore but some people are having issues with this
list.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework-05
+1 to everything Magnus says here. THis is exactly how I view the multiple port
issue.
I will also add that at least part of this fuss seems to be concern about how
human oversight is needed but what if the overseer misbehaves issue. Speaking
as someone who has been doing IANA reviews for well
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:38 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
+1 to everything Magnus says here. THis is exactly how I view the multiple
port
issue.
I'll respond to this separately.
I will also add that at least part of this fuss seems to be concern about how
human oversight is
On 2/1/11 2:14 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 18:44:
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying here but you are avoiding the issue I
am concerned with. Is allocating a second port for the secure version of a
document a frivolous use case or not? I read this
So to summarize what you are saying, ports are allocated based on an arbitrary
view of the expert review. When this person will say yes or no too can't be
described and will change over time.
If that's how it works, there is not even any grounds for appeal of any given
decision. You can't
inline
On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:14 , Magnus Westerlund wrote:
Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 18:44:
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying here but you are avoiding the
issue I am concerned with. Is allocating a second port for the secure
version of a document a frivolous use case
To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
useful:
1) the current doc already explicitly states the procedures for
assignment in each range of ports (see Sec 8.1.1).
2) Sec 8.1.1 *already* states that IESG approval through IETF process is
a valid path for
On 2/1/2011 9:19 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
So to summarize what you are saying, ports are allocated based on an
arbitrary view of the expert review. When this person will say yes or no
too can't be described and will change over time.
See my other post. Section 8.1.1 already states that
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
useful:
1) the current doc already explicitly states the procedures for assignment
in each range of ports (see Sec 8.1.1).
2) Sec 8.1.1 *already* states
On 2/1/2011 10:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Joe Touchto...@isi.edu wrote:
To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
useful:
1) the current doc already explicitly states the procedures for assignment
in each range of ports (see
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 2/1/2011 10:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Joe Touchto...@isi.edu wrote:
To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
useful:
1) the current doc already explicitly
On 2/1/2011 10:29 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
I'm sorry, but I'm still not clear.
This document has an affirmative statement against the use of multiple
ports for TLS.
I'm sorry, but it does not.
I states a goal, and a preference, and has plenty of wiggle room as I've
repeatedly quoted,
I'll add my +1 to Ned's comments in a slightly different way. As
someone who is a reviewer, I think we all owe a big debt to Joe Touch
and Pearl Liang for guiding applicants and reviewers through the process
(even if the applicants don't know it).
Eliot
On 2/1/11 5:38 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
+1
Joe == Joe Touch to...@isi.edu writes:
Joe On 1/27/2011 12:52 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Joe ...
Small Issue #3: I object to anonymous review
The current review is anonymous and this draft does not seem to
change that. I don't like anonymous review - it's not how we do
On 2/1/2011 11:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
Joe, the IESG had a fair amount of negative experience with this style
of review just before I joined; this type of review was just about out
of the process leading to blocking objections when I joined as an AD.
I think that being able to discuss
Joe == Joe Touch to...@isi.edu writes:
Joe On 2/1/2011 11:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Joe ...
Joe, the IESG had a fair amount of negative experience with this
style of review just before I joined; this type of review was
just about out of the process leading to blocking
On 2/1/2011 12:12 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Joe == Joe Touchto...@isi.edu writes:
Joe On 2/1/2011 11:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Joe ...
Joe, the IESG had a fair amount of negative experience with this
style of review just before I joined; this type of review was
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Magnus Westerlund
magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com wrote:
Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 18:44:
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying here but you are avoiding the issue
I am concerned with. Is allocating a second port for the secure version of a
document
Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
document's authors for their information and to allow them to address
any
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The bar for PS has crept up, IMHO, precisely because the bar
for DS/STD has appeared too high to be readily attainable.
Lowering the bar will result in the I-Ds on which the first rush of
implementations are currently being based on becoming the PS document.
But I
What is wrong with using Informational and Experimental for cases where a
lowered bar is required?
If someone is proposing an entirely new protocol, a low bar is appropriate.
But that is only a very small fraction of the work done in IETF today. Most
of the WG effort goes to incremental
80th IETF Meeting
Prague, Czech Republic
March 27 - April 1, 2011
Host: CZ.NIC
1. Registration
2. NEW: Companion Program
3. Visas Letters of Invitation
4. Accommodations and Transportation
5. Meeting Wiki
1. Registration
Register online at:
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/80/
26 matches
Mail list logo
