Just to make public what I have hinted at privately, I think that steps
in section 4.1 may be somewhat underspecified.
They give the logic a client, one which supports both DHCP and DNS,
should
follow in order to find a KDC, with DNS information being preferred.
One scenario outlined in section 1
Hiya,
On 06/08/2012 01:35 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 06/06/2012 09:33 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
As requested I am sending comments on this last call draft to
ietf@ietf.org. I sent them to the authors on 6
Hi Bjoern,
Thanks for the feedback!
On 06/08/2012 03:16 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
Hi,
In http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-06 the RFC 2119
Just to note that -07 is the version for IETF LC. But your
comments apply as well to that, so that's fine.
If its useful, I've a
Sigh.
These multiple threads are, IMO, a wonderful exposition of how
the IETF can waste a tremendous amount of collective time and
energy fine-tuning a document and/or procedures by a very large
committee. If nothing else, the process often leads to victory
by exhaustion as people just give up,
On 6/8/2012 3:37 AM, t.p. wrote:
Just to make public what I have hinted at privately, I think that steps
in section 4.1 may be somewhat underspecified.
They give the logic a client, one which supports both DHCP and DNS,
should
follow in order to find a KDC, with DNS information being preferred.
- Original Message -
From: ssakane ssak...@cisco.com
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-opt...@tools.ietf.org;
sec...@ietf.org; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:29 PM
Hi Tom,
Some reviewers suggested me to just remove the figure and its
On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
• It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC
Board is the
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
just to be clear - saying final appellate avenue in the standardization
process. could be read as meaning
that a appeal of a technical decision could be made to the ISOC Board and
that is not the case -
this is why I used different
Hi Med,
On 06/06/2012 08:04 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear Suresh, all,
Even if the document includes several warnings about the unreliability of an
RS-based mechanism, I suggest to add a pointer to the following document:
All,
Based on this explanation from Scott I withdraw my suggestion. Text can
stay as it is.
Eliot
On 6/8/12 9:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
wfm
On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
just to be clear - saying final appellate avenue in the standardization
process. could be read as meaning
that a appeal of a technical decision could be made to the ISOC Board and
that
One small comment, that I know the authors are aware of...
On 6 June 2012 13:33, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
I think using .well-known is a good idea.
I think that using .well-known is a bad idea.
This imposes an unnecessary restriction on the deployment of
resources. /.well-known/
Hi Martin,
On 06/08/2012 10:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
One small comment, that I know the authors are aware of...
On 6 June 2012 13:33, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
I think using .well-known is a good idea.
I think that using .well-known is a bad idea.
Ok. Opinions vary.
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases you're going to want to know the content type and
guessing is really a bad idea.
That said, there are security considerations associated with
Hi,
I want to thank Peter and Tim to take my comments into account in version
4 of this document. I'm happy with version this version.
Regards,
Stephan
On 4.30.2012 19:19 , Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org wrote:
Hi,
Here are a few comments to this draft.
Stephan
(1) Section 3.1, final
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 16:09 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
• The Tao mentions that we meet once a year in each region. I don't
think that's true for Asia at this point. The text might call out that we
meet where there are participants, or words that the IAOC might provide.
It
Hi Sam,
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases you're going to want to know the content type and
guessing is really a bad idea.
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Hi Sam,
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases you're going to want to know the
18 matches
Mail list logo
