Subject: Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 at
11:01:02PM -0400 Quoting Scott Kitterman (sc...@kitterman.com):
Personally, I'm quite surprised that doubling the DNS queries associated with
SPF for the foreseeable future is a meh issue to DNS people.
On 05/05/2013 11:06 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 at
11:01:02PM -0400 Quoting Scott Kitterman (sc...@kitterman.com):
Personally, I'm quite surprised that doubling the DNS queries associated with
SPF for the foreseeable
Hannes,
The aim of this group is to find out how to reference IETF RFC (and standards
from other organizations, like the W3C) since the European Commission seems
to be unable to just reference standards beyond a small set of organizations
(such as ETSI).
As you can imagine, the
On Sun, 2013-05-05, John C Klensin wrote:
Finally, there are a few things that we used to do, that were
helpful, and that were abandoned due to industry evolution and
changes in priorities. The original idea of a Proposed Standard
as a fairly rough specification that would be used for study
On May 5, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote:
On 05/05/2013 01:37 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
On 2/05/2013 18:17, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On May 2, 2013, at 07:21, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Yeah, all kinds of issues, but if we created a new thing here
..
WG chairs might like to comment, but I suspect that one lunchtime training
session every four months does not constitute proactive management.
+1 !!!
It works on down the line too.
WG Chairs meeting with I-D editors once every 4 months isn't so great
either.
If the total time has gone up
Dear Robert,
I updated the document to cover the comments you raised. You can check the diff
available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06
Cheers,
Med
De : dhcwg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de
Robert Sparks
Envoyé :
http://labs.apnic.net/blabs/?p=309
an excellent detective story on badly-written, poorly edited, standards track
RFCs leading to interop problems. Enjoy.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
Technical writer and editor, native English speaker, IELTS score of 9.0,
vaguely appalled by this
Looks good to me. Thanks!
RjS
On 5/6/13 3:02 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear Robert,
I updated the document to cover the comments you raised. You can check
the diff available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06
Cheers,
Med
*De
On 30 Apr 2013, at 16:43, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
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:
[Bing] draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
On 04/05/2013 09:22, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work
and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only
succeed with professional (=paid) editors.
I
On 07/05/2013 02:10, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
http://labs.apnic.net/blabs/?p=309
an excellent detective story on badly-written, poorly edited, standards track
RFCs leading to interop problems. Enjoy.
I don't that is quite right. The problem in this case is not to do
with linguistic
At 07:20 03-05-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
WG chairs might like to comment, but I suspect that one lunchtime training
session every four months does not constitute proactive management.
One lunch every four months does not look like proactive management. :-)
At 11:34 03-05-2013, Andy Bierman
--On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:23 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/05/2013 02:10, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
http://labs.apnic.net/blabs/?p=309
an excellent detective story on badly-written, poorly edited,
standards track RFCs leading to interop problems.
At 13:23 06-05-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't that is quite right. The problem in this case is not to do
with linguistic quality. It's due to a lack of formal verification
Quoting from the detective story:
At [censored] we have changed our mail server configuration in the past few
--On Monday, May 06, 2013 04:35 -0400 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Personally I hope that RFC 6410 has the effect that we, as a
community, get serious about promoting our proposed standards,
or obsolete them.
I wonder how many standards got promoted after 6410 was
published.
--On Monday, May 06, 2013 00:26 -0700 Bill McQuillan
mcqui...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, 2013-05-05, John C Klensin wrote:
Finally, there are a few things that we used to do, that were
helpful, and that were abandoned due to industry evolution and
changes in priorities. The original idea
In message 51881140.5070...@gmail.com, Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 07/05/2013 02:10, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
http://labs.apnic.net/blabs/?p=309
an excellent detective story on badly-written, poorly edited, standards
track RFCs leading to interop pro
blems. Enjoy.
I don't that
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Apples mail client is broken [IPv6:2001:df9::4015:1430:8367:2073:5d0]
is not legal according to both RFC 5321 and RFC 2821 which is all
that applies here.
I was until today unaware how strong the feelings are on this
one-or-more vs. two-or-more issue. I
I was getting ready to send a note that basically said I give up when I saw
this post from Randy. Thanks Randy.
Then a friend posted this TED talk and it landed in my facebook feed. It
gives me hope that there are a few men out there who might get the issue.
I personally would love to see the
You missed the point RFC 5321 SMTP clients have to operate
with RFC 2821 SMTP servers when sending address literal in
the HELO/EHLO. Code doesn't magically get updated when the
spec is updated. It takes years for changes to trickle
through. The code has
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Apples mail client is broken [IPv6:2001:df9::4015:1430:8367:2073:5d0]
is not legal according to both RFC 5321 and RFC 2821 which is all
that applies here.
I was until today unaware how strong the feelings are on this
one-or-more vs. two-or-more
The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document:
- 'Additional Diffie-Hellman Tests for IKEv2'
draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks-04.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6927
Title: Variants in Second-Level Names Registered
in Top-Level Domains
Author: J. Levine, P. Hoffman
Status: Informational
Stream:
24 matches
Mail list logo
