Hi Jason,
At 11:48 02-05-2011, Livingood, Jason wrote:
In any of the various IPv6 fora (including v6ops at the IETF) DNS
Whitelisting is how this practice is typically labeled. When writing the
draft I felt this could be confusing outside of IPv6 circles and so
lengthened it to IPv6 DNS
At 12:02 PM -0400 4/25/11, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
However, when I look at section 2.1.4 in the signed-object document ,
the signer can only include one certificate.
How does that work during phase 2 when some of the RPs support the new
format and some only support the old format?
Your text
At 9:27 AM -0400 4/17/11, John C Klensin wrote:
Steve,
Two things:
(1) Given the variable amount of time it takes to get RFCs
issued/ published after IESG signoff, are you and the WG sure
that you want to tie the phases of the phase-in procedure to RFC
publication?
It probably would help if
The response so far has been quite limited. There are five days left...
Russ
On Apr 14, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
I wanted to make sure you were all aware of this opportunity to recognize
contributions to networking.
Russ
--
CALL FOR
Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. I can have
multiple ROAs for the same set of prefixes in the repository and valid
at the same time: one signed by a new certificate and one signed by a
previous certificate? If so, I think I now begin to understand why the
SIDR working
I'm having a hard time thinking of adequate alternatives terms (but
this purely a personal failing, I'm sure). Recommendations for other
words?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Jason,
Perhaps an experience for preparing for World IPv6 Day could be added as
appendix.
We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hi Pierrick,
Thank you very much for adopting the comments. Now I'm very satisfied with the
document.
BR,
Haibin
-Original Message-
From: pierrick.se...@orange-ftgroup.com
[mailto:pierrick.se...@orange-ftgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Songhaibin;
On 3 May 2011 04:48, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.comwrote:
In any of the various IPv6 fora (including v6ops at the IETF) DNS
Whitelisting is how this practice is typically labeled. When writing the
draft I felt this could be confusing outside of IPv6 circles and so
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP)
*** Apply until May 8, 2011 for the ANR Prize for IETF-81,
*** July 24-29, 2011 in Quebec City, Canada!
The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is awarded for
recent results in applied networking
On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Network Working Group M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates:
5245
(if approved) C. Perkins
Intended
On May 2, 2011, at 08:28 , Erik Kline wrote:
I'm having a hard time thinking of adequate alternatives terms (but this
purely a personal failing, I'm sure). Recommendations for other words?
The word enclave springs to mind. We are talking about the use of DNS
enclaves for serving
At 11:05 AM -0400 5/3/11, Sam Hartman wrote:
Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. I can have
multiple ROAs for the same set of prefixes in the repository and valid
at the same time: one signed by a new certificate and one signed by a
previous certificate? If so, I think I now
Stephen == Stephen Kent k...@bbn.com writes:
I guess the only question I'd have remaining is whether ROAs or
other signed objects are intended to be used in other protocols
besides simply living in the SIDR repository?
Stephen The RPKI repository is designed to support
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RBridges: Adjacency'
(draft-ietf-trill-adj-07.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Jari Arkko.
A URL of this
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Real-Time Applications and
Infrastructure Area. For additional information, please contact the Area
Directors or the WG Chairs.
Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (rtcweb)
---
Current Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6219
Title: The China Education and Research
Network (CERNET) IVI Translation Design and
Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and
17 matches
Mail list logo
