Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Based on the length of this thread, it is clear to me that more discussion is needed, but I do not think that the IETF mail list is the place to have it. So, the antitrust-policy mail list has been set up to continue the discussion. It is clear to me that many people are questioning what would

RE: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

Hi Adrian, I can confirm that the draft is requesting a code point for the version of G.8113.1 that was forwarded to WTSA by SG 15, this is the same as the draft that was determined in February 2011, I am not anticipating any changes prior to the approval decision at WTSA. None of the changes

RE: New Liaison Statement, "LS370 - Current status ofRecommendation ITU-T G.8113.1/Y.1372.1, Operations, Administration andMaintenance mechanism for MPLS-TP in Packet Transport Network (PTN)"

Support -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Scott Mansfield Sent: א 08 ינואר 2012 15:53 To: ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org; cc...@ietf.org Cc: swal...@cisco.com; stbry...@cisco.com; adr...@olddog.co.uk; andrew.g.ma..

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04 Reviewer:

RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04

Hi Murray, Thanks for the quick response. > These are all good points. My gut reaction is to say that this is all good > advice and entirely > correct but probably goes a little far for the problem space we're trying to > address. That sounds reasonable to me, and I like John Levine's sugge

tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc4046-bis-05

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 issues raised

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (dime)

Hi, During the IESG internal review of this I asked whether or not there was interest in trying to tackle end to end security for AVPs. I do know there is at least some interest in that but its not clear there's enough to warrant including it in the re-charter so I said I'd ask when the recharte

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04

On Jan 10, 2012, at 6:44 PM, wrote: > [1] The first open issue is the absence of security guidance to ensure that > this > redaction technique effectively hides the redacted information. The redaction > technique is to concatenate a secret string (called the "redaction key") to > the > inform

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04

Hi David, At 18:44 10-01-2012, david.bl...@emc.com wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please I appreciate that you have spent your time and effort in performing the review. I find the review useful. From a pure security perspective, use of