Hi Francisco,
if a token is created for access to server S1 and S2 then any party that
gets access to the token can obviously access both servers. This should
not be super surprising.
So, if you have a deployment where you want to grant access to resources
at multiple servers and the
I support the updates to this draft.
Jinesh
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Hannes,
if a token is created for access to server S1 and S2 then any party
that gets access to the token can obviously access both servers. This
should not be super surprising.
So, if you have a deployment where you want to grant access to
resources at multiple servers and the attack
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-02-01 08:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1/31/12 11:59 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Is that wise? I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the
whole reason for allocating this space was that
On 1/31/12 1:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IMHO the text should make it
clear that this is the wrong way to use it and give the reasons
why - basically the same information as in the new text, but stated
exactly the other way round. For example
Shared Address Space is IPv4 address space
Pete,
We seem to be agreeing violently.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2012-02-02 11:33, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1/31/12 1:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IMHO the text should make it
clear that this is the wrong way to use it and give the reasons
why - basically the same information as in
Hi all,
The 2011-2012 IETF Nominating committee is pleased to announce
the selection of the IAB members whose two year terms start at
IETF83.
The Nomcom has selected the following persons to serve as members
of the IAB and they have been confirmed by the ISOC Board of
Trustees (in its role as
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6'
draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications-08.txt as an
Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The BFCPBIS Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on
Tuesday, February 21, from 8-10am PST.
The virtual interim will be conducted via WebEx, the details for which
are attached to this e-mail. It is generally best if you join via the
link provided, and then allow the system to call
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6508
Title: Sakai-Kasahara Key Encryption (SAKKE)
Author: M. Groves
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date: February 2012
Mailbox:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6509
Title: MIKEY-SAKKE: Sakai-Kasahara Key Encryption in
Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY)
Author: M. Groves
Status: Informational
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6518
Title: Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines
Author: G. Lebovitz, M. Bhatia
Status: Informational
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6528
Title: Defending against Sequence Number Attacks
Author: F. Gont, S. Bellovin
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: February 2012
Hi all,
The 2011-2012 IETF Nominating committee is pleased to announce
the selection of the IAB members whose two year terms start at
IETF83.
The Nomcom has selected the following persons to serve as members
of the IAB and they have been confirmed by the ISOC Board of
Trustees (in its role as
14 matches
Mail list logo
