If always meeting in one place, we should obviously consult the work on where
is central, which shows London at the top of the list. Twice.
(Yes, I do know where I've made a deliberate error in reaching that conclusion.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Co
The problems with this draft persist...
Organizations such as M3AAWG hope to use DKIM will be able as a required
acceptance requirement to offer better ensure a domain identity to provide
offers a
I happen to be sitting in a M3AAWG meeting as I write this note and it
happens that I ju
Dear Dave,
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The problems with this draft persist...
>
>> Organizations such as M3AAWG hope to use DKIM will be able as a required
>> acceptance requirement to offer better ensure a domain identity to provide
>> offers a
>
> I happen to be si
>
> > The draft continues to make broad, onerous claims like this, but
> provides no documentation to indicate that the DKIM signing specification
> is flawed in the function it is performing: attaching a validated domain
> name to a message.
>
> DKIM does not, in its current form, attach a valida
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I persist in thinking that those 32-bit names are continuing their evolution
> into local-scope names, with translation at naming region boundaries. How can
> we improve that - reduce the brittleness of the middleboxes you refer to, by
> making their data more visible (and th
On 6/4/2013 1:08 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Dear Dave,
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
I happen to be sitting in a M3AAWG meeting as I write this note
and it happens that I just came out of a session in which someone
tried to assert the use of DKIM (or SPF) as a 'requirement' and
On Jun 4, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > The draft continues to make broad, onerous claims like this, but provides
> > no documentation to indicate that the DKIM signing specification is flawed
> > in the function it is performing: attaching a validated domain name to a
> > message
>
> Of course it is incorrect for a DKIM signature to be valid when a message
> has multiple From header fields. DKIM requires AT LEAST the From header
> field to be the minimal portion of the message signed. Every other part of
> the message is optional.
>
In retrospect, I think that requiremen
On 6/4/2013 4:51 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Of course it is incorrect for a DKIM signature to be valid when a
message has multiple From header fields.
You lost that debate in the working group. Multiple times.
Saying "of course" at the beginning of your claim does not make you win
the argument.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Simply publishing this draft appears to have already increase
the level of multiple FROM header field abuse seen where it is
now at 21% of signed DKIM messages.
>>>
>>> Sounds pretty scary. No doubt the assertion is publicly
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> In its current form, DKIM simply attaches a domain name in an unseen
> message fragment, not a message. The ease in which the only assured
> visible fragment of the message signed by the domain being forged makes it
> impossible for appropria
On 5/30/2013 7:59 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 11:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I can also see potential for adding some info to the Tao, but the danger there
is that document becomes too big and too detailed to be of use.
Many would claim it already is. We discussed that her
Would adding a statement like this at the end of 3.1.2 address your concern:
Exceptions for other network types, such as for the "ATM"
network type defined in [RFC3108], require additional specifications.
Regards,
Simo
From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: 4.
Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been a heart
attack.
https://nohats.ca/hugh-of-borg.jpg
Those who met him, know him. Principled to the core, and very present in
any room, he compelled people to listen to him - both by what he said,
and how loud he said it.
He h
Paul Wouters wrote:
> Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been
> a heart attack.
Whoah. I had completely lost track of him in the past decade, but he
was one of the most memorable people I ever met through the IETF. We
met first at IETF 37 I think, in San Jose, and ke
Oh...
What to say, what to add?
Patrik -- sad
On 5 jun 2013, at 00:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been a heart
> attack.
>
> https://nohats.ca/hugh-of-borg.jpg
>
>
> Those who met him, know him. Principled to the core, and
Sounds like a great guy.'
Too bad I never met him.
R.I.P Hugh Daniel.
Edwin (sob sob)
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Oh...
>
> What to say, what to add?
>
> Patrik -- sad
>
> On 5 jun 2013, at 00:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> >
> > Hugh Daniel passed away on
In message , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pa
trik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
> Oh...
>
> What to say, what to add?
>
> Patrik -- sad
Sad indeed. Just used one of those key chain lights the other day.
Mark
> On 5 jun 2013, at 00:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> >=20
> > Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd
On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:39, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Oh...
>
> What to say, what to add?
The world is, unfortunately, a tad bit quieter now.
Quite sad, and quite unexpected.
Christopher
>
> Patrik -- sad
>
> On 5 jun 2013, at 00:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>>
>> Hugh Daniel passed awa
I'm jumping into this particular branch of the conversation late. I've
followed Doug's concerns against DKIM somewhat over the years.
It seems fairly clear that Doug has a long-standing concern regarding
DKIM and how it interacts with e-mail.
It seems fairly clear he's in the rough within the IET
Hi Simo,
This will be OK
Roni
From: simo.veikkolai...@nokia.com [mailto:simo.veikkolai...@nokia.com]
Sent: 04 June, 2013 9:48 AM
To: ron.even@gmail.com;
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft
21 matches
Mail list logo
