Joe Touch wrote:
>> Or, are 6 to 4 translators are required to rate limit and
>> drop rate-violating packets to make the "stateless"
>> translators full of states.
>
> I would expect that the translator would be responsible
> for this, though
Do you mean translators must rate limit, or translator
Hi Pete,
At 11:57 17-07-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
requirements document in the sense that it is laying out
requirements for future protocol documents being developed by a WG;
Hi Russ,
On 2012-07-17, at 19:06, Russ Housley wrote:
> I think you missed my point. In a PKI, when the issuer significantly changes
> the policy, subsequent certificates have a different policy identifier. I do
> not see a similar concept here.
You're right, I did miss your point, quite tho
Joe:
I think you missed my point. In a PKI, when the issuer significantly changes
the policy, subsequent certificates have a different policy identifier. I do
not see a similar concept here.
Russ
On Jul 16, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> On 2012-07-15, at 11:39, Russ Ho
On 7/17/12 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
requirements document in the sense that it is laying out
requirem
--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
wrote:
> Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
> document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
> requirements document in the sense that it is laying out
> requirements for future protocol documents being
On 7/3/12 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am sure
you can sort the right status out with IESG.
+1
I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status.
Lars
Hi Simon,
On 10/07/2012 18:50, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 07/03/2012 08:24 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I found the justification for REQ-6 hard to read/understand. Why does
access to
servers being on the internal network need to go through CGN at all?
Here's the thing: the server is not on the
