At 13:15 29-04-2013, Michael StJohns wrote:
Let me ask a couple of specific questions of you.
I think that these are good questions.
Who have you mentored in the past 5 years? Have they ended up as
working group chairs, or ADs or IAB members? Do they mostly
represent under-represented
Thanks Dave for your thorough review.
You have some very valid points.
I've not seen any replies from the author. Maybe he doesn't monitor this
list. So, including some extra mailing lists.
Martin, NETMOD WG, can you please address David's points.
Note: there is also a reply from Tom Petch on
I was counting femal ADs. I ment no female names in the AD list apears (in
my understandning I mybe wrong because in my culture some families name
their memebrs with names that we cannot notice gender). As I am a remote
participant I am not aware and may never notice difference. But I can refer
Martin,
It's interesting to note that Dave came up with similar feedback as I
had during my AD review.
And you had to re-explain this again, via email. This leads me to think
that we need some more background information, typically in Operational
Considerations section.
On 30/04/2013 13:07, Benoit Claise wrote:
Martin,
It's interesting to note that Dave came up with similar feedback as I
had during my AD review.
And you had to re-explain this again, via email. This leads me to
think that we need some more background information, typically in
Operational
On Apr 30, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
On 30/04/2013 13:07, Benoit Claise wrote:
Martin,
It's interesting to note that Dave came up with similar feedback as I had
during my AD review.
And you had to re-explain this again, via email. This leads me to think
Hi David,
Thank you for your detailed review! Comments inline.
David Harrington ietf...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi,
I have reviewed this document and feel that is almost ready for approval.
This document defines a new data model in YANG format, based on the same
information model as the
On Apr 30, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com wrote:
5) is there a reason why description value MAY match IF-MIB ifAlias
***and MAY restrict the values***?
Is there a particular use case for this lack of standardization of
restrictions across data models?
The
Hi Ted,
On 04/30/2013 01:19 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
So, this page: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html still has TBD
listed for one of the transport ADs. Is there a projected date for
appointment at this point?
Forgive the broad distribution of the question, but it's not clear
whether this
On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just picking a couple of points for further comment:
On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
Hi, Robert
...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
...
The document currently references
On 4/30/13 8:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
On 4/2/13 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just picking a couple of points for further comment:
On 02/04/2013 08:46, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
Hi, Robert
...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
...
The document
- Original Message -
From: Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org
To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 1:53 AM
Hi Tom,
On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
If we required the IETF to
- Original Message -
From: Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net
To: Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; ietf@ietf.org;
stbry...@cisco.com
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:01 PM
On Apr 29, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 2013-04-29, at
On Tue 30/Apr/2013 01:07:42 +0200 Mark Andrews wrote:
The really annoying thing is that SPF is techically superior
to TXT is lots of ways.
1. It uniquely identifies the roll of the record.
2. As SPF records are singletons you don't need to identify
and
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
The plenary topic for IETF 86, The End of POTS, was proposed by an IETF
participant. That plenary topic was well received. As the IAB prepares for
IETF 87, we want to reach out to the IETF community for technical plenary
topics. Please send suggestions to iab at iab.org.
The IAB is
On 04/30/2013 09:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
While it's too late for SPF, we can learn this lesson.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext and
spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF. The way forward is simple:
1. Publish the bis draft which says for senders to
On 4/30/2013 10:11 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext and
spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF.
As has repeatedly been pointed out, the market has already had plenty of
time to adopt the RR and has overwhelmingly rejected it.
d/
--
The IAB has just notified the ITU-T that Deborah Brungard will be the new IETF
Liaison Manager to the ITU-T for MPLS. Deborah was appointed following an open
call for volunteers (see email from Scott Mansfield to the IETF list on Fri
3/29/2013 4:32 PM EDT). Please congratulate Deborah when you
On Apr 30, 2013, at 12:28, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
...The basic fact that killed the SPF type is
the ability to use TXT as a replacement. There must be an analogous
of Gresham's law: Bad types drive out good ones.
I disagree with the assertion that what killed SPF is the ability to use TXT
Dave,
On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 4/30/2013 10:11 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext and
spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF.
As has repeatedly been pointed out, the market has already had
Hi Martin,
On Apr 30, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Martin Stiemerling martin.stiemerl...@neclab.eu
wrote:
Hi Ted,
On 04/30/2013 01:19 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
So, this page: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html still has TBD
listed for one of the transport ADs. Is there a projected date for
On 4/30/2013 11:08 AM, David Conrad wrote:
As has repeatedly been pointed out, the market has already had
plenty of time to adopt the RR and has overwhelmingly rejected it.
What is the IETF-approved timeframe in which the market is allowed
to accept/reject a particular technology?
I've no
Doug,
Aren't you tired of repeatedly pointing out your half of the argument? I
am of ours. The Monty Python argument clinic sketch comes to mind.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The discussion about this on the spfbis list all revolved around the fact
Murray,
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com wrote:
I would also point out that it's not difficult, given a jumble of TXT RRs in
a reply, to find any that start with a particular identifying substring which
would mean this is an SPF record, so let's nip that
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
What is the IETF-approved timeframe in which the market is allowed to
accept/reject a particular technology?
I've no idea what the lower limit is or should be, but I'm quite sure that 7
years exceeds it by a very comfortable
On 4/30/2013 12:54 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
What is the IETF-approved timeframe in which the market is allowed to
accept/reject a particular technology?
I've no idea what the lower limit is or should be, but I'm quite sure
I think the statistics are very interesting and we should continue developing
them, but we should also not be driven by them. I'll repeat again what I've
said before: I can see increasing both participation diversity and leadership
diversity being useful for the IETF. We are limited by various
you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-- bob dylan
we do not need measurements to know the ietf is embarrassingly
non-diverse. it is derived from and embedded in an embarrassingly
non-diverse culture.
we need to do what we can to remedy this. progress not perfection is
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-- bob dylan
we do not need measurements to know the ietf is embarrassingly
non-diverse. it is derived from and embedded in an embarrassingly
non-diverse culture.
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I've no idea what the lower limit is or should be, but I'm quite sure that
7 years exceeds it by a very comfortable margin.
By that logic we should abandon IPv6, DNSSEC, EDNS0, etc.
Gosh, David. I guess you win.
Gee Dave,
On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:53 PM 4/30/13, David Meyer d...@1-4-5.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-- bob dylan
we do not need measurements to know the ietf is embarrassingly
On 4/30/2013 2:37 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I've no idea what the lower limit is or should be, but I'm quite sure that 7
years exceeds it by a very comfortable margin.
By that logic we should abandon IPv6, DNSSEC, EDNS0, etc.
In message 51802793.3010...@dcrocker.net, Dave Crocker writes:
On 4/30/2013 12:54 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
What is the IETF-approved timeframe in which the market is allowed to a
ccept/reject a particular technology?
I've
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30apr13-en.htm
In order to provide additional time for candidates to apply, ICANN's
2013 Nominating Committee (NomCom) has extended the deadline for
Statements of Interest until 15 May 2013 at 23:59 UTC.
The 2013 NomCom is actively
I think I understand this issue well enough to comment and so I will.
1) I totally believe it is reasonable to consider operational challenges
when designing protocols. Just upgrade your infrastructure, just use
another registrar, just upgrade the infrastructure of the people you
communicate
In message 517ff144.5040...@tana.it, Alessandro Vesely writes:
On Tue 30/Apr/2013 01:07:42 +0200 Mark Andrews wrote:
The really annoying thing is that SPF is techically superior
to TXT is lots of ways.
1. It uniquely identifies the roll of the record.
2. As SPF
In message 517ffb33.30...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 04/30/2013 09:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
While it's too late for SPF, we can learn this lesson.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext and
spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF. The way forward
On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 07:54:46 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 51802793.3010...@dcrocker.net, Dave Crocker writes:
On 4/30/2013 12:54 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
What is the IETF-approved timeframe in which the market
On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 11:16:48 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
3. Update the software to query SPF first (Note, Perl's NET::SPF, used
by SpamAssassin, already made this change).
Actually it's Mail::SPF and as we already discussed on the spfbis list this
design choice caused operational problems
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
SPF using TXT and hence, SPFBIS forces the uniquification of the DNS
response into the application instead of in the DNS library. Given the
ordering of individual TXT RRs within an RRset is not guaranteed, I suspect
The plenary topic for IETF 86, The End of POTS, was proposed by an IETF
participant. That plenary topic was well received. As the IAB prepares for
IETF 87, we want to reach out to the IETF community for technical plenary
topics. Please send suggestions to iab at iab.org.
The IAB is
The IAB has just notified the ITU-T that Deborah Brungard will be the new IETF
Liaison Manager to the ITU-T for MPLS. Deborah was appointed following an open
call for volunteers (see email from Scott Mansfield to the IETF list on Fri
3/29/2013 4:32 PM EDT). Please congratulate Deborah when you
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6930
Title: RADIUS Attribute for IPv6 Rapid
Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)
Author: D. Guo,
S. Jiang,
Ed., R. Despres,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6929
Title: Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions
Author: A. DeKok, A. Lior
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6930
Title: RADIUS Attribute for IPv6 Rapid
Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)
Author: D. Guo,
S. Jiang, Ed.,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6935
Title: IPv6 and UDP Checksums for
Tunneled Packets
Author: M. Eubanks, P. Chimento,
M. Westerlund
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6936
Title: Applicability Statement for the Use
of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero
Checksums
Author: G. Fairhurst, M. Westerlund
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6941
Title: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security
Framework
Author: L. Fang, Ed.,
B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed.,
S.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6944
Title: Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC)
DNSKEY Algorithm Implementation Status
Author: S. Rose
Status: Standards Track
50 matches
Mail list logo
